A parish liturgist?
-
People who expect scholarly discourse in discussion forums are in the wrong place. I nearly laugh aloud each time I read "where's your citation for that?" in this kind of place. That kind of approach betrays a lack of appreciation of context and/or appropriate interpersonal contract in that context.
-
And that's my point. Many think they are more holy and/or smarter than real authorities in the Church.
I don't have a citation for this, since it probably hasn't been studied. What number of those "many" you reference are converts, not content with anything where they were, and now not content with anything where they are? Were they expecting perfection on earth? It doesn't exist in the Catholic Church, and it never did or will. -
Fr. Jim Chepponis: Lay ministry is discussed in detail in the document,
Thanks.
In Aug 2009, when I had more time to self-instruct and share info,
I introduced into this forum several items with that Document,
and that particular Discussion was derailed twice, so I gave up. -
The question of terminology is indeed not trivial.
The Second Vatican Council's principal document on the role of the laity, Apostolicam actuositatem (1965), spoke of lay apostolate and distinguished it from ministry: "... the apostolate of the laity and the pastoral ministry are mutually complementary." It consistently uses the term "apostolate" for lay activity, especially for activity in the spheres of social life, work, and evangelization; and it speaks of "ministry" in regard to the pastoral activity of priests; yet it also speaks of lay people collaborating in that pastoral ministry.
The question of terminology was expressly addressed in a 1997 inter-dicasterial document, the "Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest".
The document devoted a section to the "need for an appropriate terminology", and included quotations from the address of Pope St. John Paul II to a Roman symposium on the collaboration of lay faithful with priestly ministry. He said that "only in virtue of sacred ordination does the word [ministry] obtain that full, univocal meaning that tradition has attributed to it." On the other hand, he describes the extension of the word "ministry" to lay activity when it is a delegated participation in the ministry of priests.Need for an Appropriate Terminology
In his address to participants at the Symposium on "Collaboration of the Lay Faithful with the Priestly Ministry", the Holy Father emphasised the need to clarify and distinguish the various meanings which have accrued to the term "ministry" in theological and canonical language.(53)
§ 1. "For some time now, it has been customary to use the word ministries not only for the officia (officies) and non-ordained (functions) munera exercised by Pastors in virtue of the sacrament of Orders, but also for those exercised by the lay faithful in virtue of their baptismal priesthood. The terminological question becomes even more complex and delicate when all the faithful are recognized as having the possibility of supplying-by official deputation given by the Pastors-certain functions more proper to clerics, which, nevertheless, do not require the character of Orders. It must be admitted that the language becomes doubtful, confused, and hence not helpful for expressing the doctrine of the faith whenever the difference 'of essence and not merely of degree' between the baptismal priesthood and the ordained priesthood is in any way obscured".
§ 2. "In some cases, the extension of the term "ministry" to the munera belonging to the lay faithful has been permitted by the fact that the latter, to their own degree, are a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The officia temporarily entrusted to them, however, are exclusively the result of a deputation by the Church. Only with constant reference to the one source, the 'ministry of Christ' (...) may the term ministry be applied to a certain extent and without ambiguity to the lay faithful: that is, without it being perceived and lived as an undue aspiration to the ordained ministry or as a progressive erosion of its specific nature.
In this original sense the term ministry (servitium) expresses only the work by which the Church's members continue the mission and ministry of Christ within her and the whole world. However, when the term is distinguished from and compared with the various munera and officia, then it should be clearly noted that only in virtue of sacred ordination does the work obtain that full, univocal meaning that tradition has attributed to it."
§ 3. The non-ordained faithful may be generically designated "extraordinary ministers" when deputed by competent authority to discharge, solely by way of supply, those offices mentioned in Canon 230, § 3 and in Canons 943 and 1112. Naturally, the concrete term may be applied to those to whom functions are canonically entrusted e.g. catechists, acolytes, lectors etc.
Temporary deputation for liturgical purposes — mentioned in Canon 230, § 2 — does not confer any special or permanent title on the non-ordained faithful.
It is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as "pastor", "chaplain", "coordinator", " moderator" or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest. -
Seriously, Chonak, are you saying donut minister isn't a real thing?
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World) -
Now we're getting onto another topic. Now we are talking about what such people are to be CALLED, but we were talking about whether they even licitly EXIST.
There's a sort of balancing act that's been going on for a while now. The USCCB (as only one example) has guidelines for "Lay Ecclesial Ministers." At the same time, the conversation that Chonak referenced came from the Holy See.
In some places things have gotten out of hand. I've always thought it's a bit questionable to have these lay ministers formally commissioned in a mass at the Cathedral by the bishop - which looks and feels an awfully lot like an ordination. I feel that this can lead to confusion.
But none of this applies to the question of whether lay people are called to have professional positions in the Church parallel to ministry. This applies to the language used when referring to them. -
Chonak's ministry vs. apostolate post is something our rector addresses often. It's been very helpful in this parish, where we are very short on priests and deacons, in clarifying roles.
There is a definite tension in the bishops' conference documents vis a vis the Vatican ones. -
There is a definite tension in the bishops' conference documents vis a vis the Vatican ones.
Yes - there definitely is.
What frustrates me (and I'm not pointing this finger at you at all) is when some simply dismiss the bishops as leftist-whack jobs (or pick your favorite term) and say "I will follow the Vatican."
While I do know that you can have an individual bishop go off the reservation (let's not name names,) I think it's very problematic to dismiss a whole conference or even group of bishops with a wave of the hand and a pronouncement that one knows better than them.
The truth, I think, is much more gray and nuanced. And sometimes I think that things just need to be hashed out and worked through. And this issue is one example of that. I think that they are still in the process of coming to consensus on WHAT these people will be called, what their legitimate role can be, etc. -
What frustrates me (and I'm not pointing this finger at you at all) is when some simply dismiss the bishops as leftist-whack jobs (or pick your favorite term) and say "I will follow the Vatican.""The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."
CCC 883
and from the COCLCan. 455 §1. A conference of bishops can only issue general decrees in cases where universal law has prescribed it or a special mandate of the Apostolic See has established it either motu proprio or at the request of the conference itself.
§2. The decrees mentioned in §1, in order to be enacted validly in a plenary meeting, must be passed by at least a two thirds vote of the prelates who belong to the conference and possess a deliberative vote. They do not obtain binding force unless they have been legitimately promulgated after having been reviewed by the Apostolic See.
-
Nine times out of ten when I see conflict in parishes, it's about unarticulated ecclesiologies. In other words, what is the role and place of ______, (fill in the blank.)
-
PGA, is there a reason for the undisguised venom in your post? We should be able to disagree without all the hard feelings spoiling the points of view.
No "venom" at all.
What I'm fighting against is what I see as a poison in our Church.
There are Church politics. But they are not AMERICAN politics. Yet what I constantly see are the terms "liberal" and "conservative" thrown about and factions of the American Church spoken of as though we are talking about the "Republican Bishops" and the "Democrat Bishops," or "Republican Pastors" and "Democrat Pastors," etc.
The real venom I see is from those who actually claim that some priests and bishops are in this to subvert the Church from within.
I'll use a real life example: The former Bishop of Rochester, NY, Most Rev. Matthew Clark. There have been websites dedicated to how he is subversive, and basically implying or outright saying some of the looniest things about him you've ever seen during his tenure.
Now let me be clear; I disagree with much of what Bishop Clark did in his diocese. I think that he made some bad decisions and I think that he did harm to his diocese. I know that he was even reeled in a couple of times by the Vatican, and the Vatican was the lawful authority over him.
BUT - I think he had the best of intentions. Not only that, I know that he was a lawful authority. And when he followed canon law, he had EVERY right to do some of the things that he did. And we are talking about a SUCCESSOR OF THE APOSTLES here. I'm sure not willing to say that ANY successor of the Apostles "hates the Church," "hates all that is holy," or any of the other nonsense I've seen spoken about the bishop.
Just above, Francis has come in with the obligatory citation regarding the bishops conference. So in the end, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING, Francis? That we should feel free to ignore the statements of the USCCB that we don't like because, ostensibly, WE KNOW BETTER than those bishops?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. A citation claiming that the Episcopal Conference has no authority and therefore a subtle hint that we should simply ignore them when they speak out of their depth (or so we think.)Thanked by 1Gavin -
PGA,
Evidently, I touched a nerve, and received the corresponding response.
For the record, I am not a Cardinal, a Pope, a theologian in residence at some Catholic institution.
I didn't, and I won't now, make any claim about my intellect.
I think that my choice of "wishful thinking" may have been what touched off the conflagration.
As for sources, some of what I have is second-hand. I don't have time just now to put my hands on the 1998? document on the collaboration of the laity with the ministerial priesthood. Perhaps someone else has it at hand?
Fr. Chepponis,
I'm not sure that a document of 2005 from the USCCB will satisfy either PGA's or my need to understand what the Council Fathers intended, since none of the bishops (or their committee assistants) were Council Fathers.
God bless,
Chris
P.S.
Chonak,
Is there some way to change my log-in from cgz to Chris Garton-Zavesky? -
Touched a nerve? Nah, at least not like you're picturing. I'm certainly not sitting at my computer, veins sticking out of my neck, shaking my fist while typing.
I like good discussion and I have no problem engaging.
I'm not "against" anyone. But I do think that some of the politicization of the Church in the way I described against is counter-productive and dangerous. So if I seem passionate, that might be why. -
Just above, Francis has come in with the obligatory citation regarding the bishops conference. So in the end, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING, Francis? That we should feel free to ignore the statements of the USCCB that we don't like because, ostensibly, WE KNOW BETTER than those bishops?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. A citation claiming that the Episcopal Conference has no authority and therefore a subtle hint that we should simply ignore them when they speak out of their depth (or so we think.)
PGA
I simply lifted quotes out of the CCC and CCL. If you have an issue with those statements, then my question is, with what issue in particular are you wrestling? Can you be more specific?BUT - I think he had the best of intentions. Not only that, I know that he was a lawful authority. And when he followed canon law, he had EVERY right to do some of the things that he did.
I (we on the forum?) are not familiar with what things you are speaking about. Can you be specific?And we are talking about a SUCCESSOR OF THE APOSTLES here. I'm sure not willing to say that ANY successor of the Apostles "hates the Church," "hates all that is holy," or any of the other nonsense I've seen spoken about the bishop.
I don't believe any of us here have said anything about Bishop Clark or any specific bishop for that matter. -
PGAWhat frustrates me (and I'm not pointing this finger at you at all) is when some simply dismiss the bishops as leftist-whack jobs (or pick your favorite term) and say "I will follow the Vatican."
How do you know I don't feel this way! :)
Seriously, though, while it's important to have a healthy respect for Holy Orders in general and the episcopacy in particular, it's helpful to remember that bishops are still a product of their seminary training as well as the staff with which they surround themselves. This is sometimes a good thing, sometimes not.Thanked by 1Gavin -
The terminology used in the USCCB document is not an occasion for concern about the limits of the episcopal conference's authority. After all, if the document isn't ordering us to do something or believe something, then authority is not being invoked.
In some countries lay people who work for the Church -- for example, as catechists -- are called church workers, and I think it's a clear, unpretentious term.
Thanked by 1Gavin -
Well, what I was confronting is a certain MINDSET, an OUTLOOK, which I am increasingly seeing here at our forum.
It is the mindset that says "I don't care what the USCCB says, they have no authority as a conference." It is also the same mindset that led to "good and faithful" Catholics of the Diocese of Rochester to, for years, plead on the internet for prayers, all the while castigating their shepherd and saying ruthless things about him.
Yes, I know that no one here said anything about Bishop Clark. I'm talking about the bigger picture, the mindset.
All of this unravels when we talk about "lay ministry." Lay ministry is a "thing." Whether you wish it didn't have to be so (if only we had 4 priests to a parish,) or you take exception to HOW it is done (why is it always women who seem to wish they could be priests, and why do they have to have a quasi-ordination ceremony,) it still remains something that exists. And we can avoid calling it "ministry," or not, it exists, and yes, I believe that Vatican II made it possible.
Now well meaning people come along and denigrate it, sometimes subtly, sometimes not. And that's what started happening on this forum. Then someone pointed out that the USCCB does indeed recognize "lay ministry."
And here's where the MINDSET comes in: People begin to surmise that it doesn't matter what the USCCB says. And this is what I'm battling (well, one of many things I suppose!)
To try to make my point clearer: A state's attorney general only has legal authority in his own state. And the national association of attorney's generals has NO authority, anywhere. It's a fraternal organization.
But if someone said "You know, we should look at the business practices of doing A and B, because just recently the national association of attorney's generals has issued a statement questioning the ethics and legality of those practices," would you say "I couldn't care less! We're going to keep doing it. They have no authority as a body!"
Probably not. The wise person would say "Hmm, it sounds like this could be concerning. Maybe we should re-evaluate and have our own lawyers look into this."
That's my point, regarding how we view the USCCB and take their advice and in what esteem we hold them. All too often, it seems that Catholics who think they know better are all too quick to say "They hold no authority!"
Look at the conversations about STTL.
-
The question of terminology is indeed not trivial.
This.
Naming things matters, deeply.
And speaking of naming things,what I constantly see are the terms "liberal" and "conservative" thrown about
But that wasn't happening here, the only use of liberal/conservative or right/left on this thread, besides salieri quoting from elsewhere was actually by you, PGA.
But I agree, I didn't see any venom in your post.
I think Francis' (that can't be the right way to do a possessive of Francis, can it? apologies in advance) quotes from CC and CCL, and Fr Chepponis quoting a document from the bishops, and other seemingly contradictory statements of the council itself only serve to highlight the difficulty of any of us presuming to say, "it was without a doubt the vision of the Council that"...
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World) -
Probably. Just like there are cantankerous parishes, there could be a cantankerous diocese.
-
CLARIFICATION:
I was not saying anything about (or referring to) the document on 'ministry' when I put up the citations to CC or CCL. It was simply a balancing statement to PGA saying that I am 'ignoring' the USCCB. I do not ignore anyone. It is simply IMPORTANT to know which things are put forward as law, which things are put forward as suggestions, and which things are put forward as issues.
Many Catholics don't understand the heirarchical nature of official statements that are generated by the USCCB as many come out from offices with no binding law. It is important to keep all things in perspective, and yes, STTL is one example of something that is not binding.Thanked by 1eft94530 -
You are legally correct about the status of STTL - and if you were making an argument in a tribunal on a finer point of canon law, you would have a real point.
But for people to simply dismiss it as "not binding" is something that they do at their own peril.
And anytime a majority of the nation's bishops have something to say, I think we should listen and contemplate what it is that they are saying - as in my hypothetical about a statement by the national association of attorneys generals. -
I listen to EVERYTHING the USCCB puts out with great earnest. And usually I can tell if it is in keeping with the magisterium because I am generally knowledgeable on the CCC, CCL, scripture, Aquinas, Ligouri, MOTU's, encyclicals, letters, bulls, councils, GIRM, etc. or can easily look up anything that is questionable.
I didn't read anything blatantly amiss in the cursory reading of the document on ministry, but I did not read it thoroughly, so I don't have a comment one way or the other.
I was not aware of the Clark whirlwind at all, so your mention of it prompted me to research it further. I was aware of Curran however.
I think it is important to say that we should 'test all spirits'. In this day and age where the church has fallen prone to modernism on many fronts, it is important to weigh ALL things in light of scripture and tradition.4 1 Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. carissimi nolite omni spiritui credere sed probate spiritus si ex Deo sint quoniam multi pseudoprophetae exierunt in mundum
4 2 By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: in hoc cognoscitur Spiritus Dei omnis spiritus qui confitetur Iesum Christum in carne venisse ex Deo est
4 3 And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and he is now already in the world. et omnis spiritus qui solvit Iesum ex Deo non est et hoc est antichristi quod audistis quoniam venit et nunc iam in mundo est
4 4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome him. Because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. vos ex Deo estis filioli et vicistis eos quoniam maior est qui in vobis est quam qui in mundo -
But for people to simply dismiss it as "not binding" is something that they do at their own peril.
There are many things in STTL that align correctly with the binding documents and traditions of sacred music outlined in the official teachings of Mother Church. So, I am aligned on those issues because I already follow them. Things that are novel, and in fact, go against the official teachings of the church are definitely not binding.And anytime a majority of the nation's bishops have something to say, I think we should listen and contemplate what it is that they are saying - as in my hypothetical about a statement by the national association of attorneys generals.
Yes. It is important to listen and qualify all statements from all parties. If they be statements of truth they will stand. If they support works of darkness, let them be exposed.5 1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as most dear children: estote ergo imitatores Dei sicut filii carissimi
5 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness. et ambulate in dilectione sicut et Christus dilexit nos et tradidit se ipsum pro nobis oblationem et hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis
5 3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: fornicatio autem et omnis inmunditia aut avaritia nec nominetur in vobis sicut decet sanctos
5 4 Or obscenity or foolish talking or scurrility, which is to no purpose: but rather giving of thanks. aut turpitudo aut stultiloquium aut scurrilitas quae ad rem non pertinent sed magis gratiarum actio
5 5 For know you this and understand: That no fornicator or unclean or covetous person (which is a serving of idols) hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. hoc enim scitote intellegentes quod omnis fornicator aut inmundus aut avarus quod est idolorum servitus non habet hereditatem in regno Christi et Dei
5 6 Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. nemo vos seducat inanibus verbis propter haec enim venit ira Dei in filios diffidentiae
5 7 Be ye not therefore partakers with them. nolite ergo effici participes eorum
5 8 For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light. eratis enim aliquando tenebrae nunc autem lux in Domino ut filii lucis ambulate
5 9 For the fruit of the light is in all goodness and justice and truth: fructus enim lucis est in omni bonitate et iustitia et veritate
5 10 Proving what is well pleasing to God. probantes quid sit beneplacitum Deo
5 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness: but rather reprove them. et nolite communicare operibus infructuosis tenebrarum magis autem et redarguite
5 12 For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of. quae enim in occulto fiunt ab ipsis turpe est et dicere
5 13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for all that is made manifest is light. omnia autem quae arguuntur a lumine manifestantur omne enim quod manifestatur lumen est
5 14 Wherefore he saith: Rise, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead: and Christ shall enlighten thee. propter quod dicit surge qui dormis et exsurge a mortuis et inluminabit tibi Christus
5 15 See therefore, brethren, how you walk circumspectly: not as unwise, videte itaque fratres quomodo caute ambuletis non quasi insipientes sed ut sapientes
5 16 But as wise: redeeming the time, because the days are evil. redimentes tempus quoniam dies mali sunt
5 17 Wherefore, become not unwise: but understanding what is the will of God. propterea nolite fieri inprudentes sed intellegentes quae sit voluntas Domini
5 18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is luxury: but be ye filled with the Holy Spirit, et nolite inebriari vino in quo est luxuria sed implemini Spiritu
5 19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual canticles, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord: loquentes vobismet ipsis in psalmis et hymnis et canticis spiritalibus cantantes et psallentes in cordibus vestris Domino
5 20 Giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God and the Father: gratias agentes semper pro omnibus in nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi Deo et Patri
-
From a casual, uninvested observance-
In my 63 years on the planet, I do not recall any other time of an almost universal pervasiveness of "instability," save for the Cuban Missle Crisis of '62.
Why should we expect to find absolute surety in "law" when the rule of law seems perpetually contravened by overlapping jurisdictions and caveats intentionally inserted into the law?
Is the GIRM absolute if STTL isn't? Not really. Why? Because, as in civil law, the consent of the governed (sensus fidelium) is quite often overturned or ignored by, say, a Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. (One feels this acutely in California, no matter which side of an issue's fence one sits on.)
Without going further into that analogy's rabbit hole, I think it would be easier for most folks if they would remember how Jesus responded to the Pharisee's indelicate challenge to qualify Mosaic Law- boil it down to clear imperative basics: Love God, love neighbor. -
It is the mindset that says "I don't care what the USCCB says, they have no authority as a conference."
I have heard that, too. But simply stated, the USCCB does have authority. When it comes to matters of liturgy, the Vatican is not at odds with the conference and has given it authority in matters of liturgy, translations, and rubrics. Consequently, the new missal translation and GIRM are binding. They have the approval of the national conference and the Vatican. STTL is a different order of document and I am not aware of any Vatican approval for it. I don't think it was even submitted for approval.Thanked by 1francis -
Is the GIRM absolute if STTL isn't?
Yes, legally speaking. The GIRM IS law, STTL is NOT law.Consequently, the new missal translation and GIRM are binding. They have the approval of the national conference and the Vatican. STTL is a different order of document and I am not aware of any Vatican approval for it. I don't think it was even submitted for approval.
Yes, legally speaking. The new missal and the GIRM are binding. STTL is not. What makes it binding IS the magisterium.
I believe the Bishops were going to submit STTL for approval, but the Vatican told them there were contradictions to present law, so they decided not to submit it for recognitio. -
Do not forget that we work out of the English common law sense and the Italians work out of the Roman law system. The two are very different.Thanked by 1Andrew Motyka
-
Thanks, ken. But our friend from Wyoming still adheres (as I wish we all could all agree to abide by) a rigorist interpretation of magisterial arbitration. Binding GIRM law remains a bone of contention as does the 2nd amendment. Is the first option for processional propers literally the Graduale Romanum, Latin and all that? Or is Justice Kennedy (apt choice) going to frame the intention as confined to standing militias only?
Said I wouldn't extend the rabbit hole, but.....it's too juicy-
"We have to pass the bill to know what's in it." Pelosi. 50 million and counting souls lost to abortuaries, meh.
(paraphrase) "I will use the power of the pen to get the government moving" Obama.
Yup, cowboys and gals, wrap yerself in the law and you'll be one lucky buckaroo not to become Cliven Bundy. -
C'mon francis, you can do my math. I'm just a plebe, working out my own salvation brick by brick.Thanked by 1francis
-
Here, kitty kitty, here Schroedegir, here....dagnabit (see Jackson, I pay attention!) darn cat's gone again. One instant here, next....
-
francis, it's simple- a bishop can implement SttL as policy in his arch/diocese. But as KLS implies, to what ends ultimately? For example, would such an imposition solve the refrain "Gloria" quandry, and what if said "Gloria" sets a Latin text only if that's the setting the bishop wants to only hear if he blows thru town for a confirmation? Furthermore, if said bishop decides that SttL pre-empts the use of the EF because of the "participatio" question and suppresses by ommission or commission its use, well to what and whom do the faithful turn for redress? CSL/MS/IGRM/MD/TLS, or Ecclesia Dei.
Boggles the mind.... -
Well, as an esteemed member of the bar, Ken, I think you would also agree that having even better lines of communication with the bishop's "gatekeepers" is likely more important. In my experience, bishops aren't generally very "impromptu" sorts of conversationalists.
-
That will probably be/should be changing. If bishops are to have the "smell of the sheep," as Pope Francis has said they should, they should not have many "gate keepers," except the most necessary ones. And at the risk of sounding too self important, this also brings the conversation full circle: if we are engaged in a type of lay ministry in cooperation with our priests,, we should have access to him and not be treated as unimportant.Thanked by 1hilluminar
-
PGA, I will not likely to live so long as to experience that new ecclesiological maxim become reality, if ever. My experience with pastors and bishops leads me to believe that should a musician be afforded a personal, friendship-based relationship with a cleric, then so-called "back channel" communications can go a long way towards reform and revision.
But for the most part, musicians (e'en the best) will likely continue to suffer the paradox of being celebrated when on public display, and regarded as "the help" behind closed doors.Thanked by 1hilluminar -
I will say that our bishop has been exemplary in this regard. He has been present at meetings of musicians and liturgists, and has made himself available to be approached after such meetings. And when he has had occasion to come around, I've never felt like I didn't have access to him or couldn't speak to him.
The former bishop, who was actually much more beloved in the minds of everyone, actually had many more "layers" between him and ... everyone. Priests included.
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 Discussions21,561
- General Music Discussion7,802
- Job Openings1,366
- Management of Music Programs839
- Choral Matters523
- Church Documents and Rubrics515
- CMAA Notes293
- Events668
- For Newcomers: Read First24
- Sacred Polyphony532
- Hymnody841
- Gregorian Chant: General2,619
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis357
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology59
- Vernacular Plainsong682
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant67
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire420
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,235
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry155
- Music Education: Children208
- Music Education: General217
- News Items243
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism729
- Amusements173
- General Discussion1,014
- Opinions115