New Sacred Music Instruction in Marquette MI
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,315
    The bishop of Marquette has just issued an instruction on sacred music in the diocese.

    Here

    1) & 2) are good objectives if the parish has either never used the missal chants or has been using them. But there is no provision to keeping Latin from being penitential. Also. why follow 1) at any/all Masses in another season if 2) goes swimmingly? Hopefully, they can introduce repetoire beyond the Iubilate Deo collection.

    3) is excellent, but it could unintentionally foster using the Roman Missal texts. I grant that is permitted in the GIRM for the USA, but using the form in the Graduale Romanum for the Introit is superior, there is no Offertory verse, and as far as the Communion goes–the one at hand in the letter–the texts are on occasion different. I know this is nothing new, but they are things to consider before beginning. I also am curious what collection will be used. As it happens, I think most of the English propers collections are compiled by CMAA members or by people with whom we mutually support.

    4) will backfire. You need more than one hymnal IMHO, though my parish uses a printed order of worship with public domain hymns. Various Anglican and Catholic hymnals ought to be in every choir director’s office for use in worship and in devotions. You also need a resource for chant like the various Corpus Christi Watershed books, the Adoremus Hymnal (my home parish has the 2nd edition which works for Sundays where they sing Mass VIII), and the Parish Book of Chant.

    On the other hand, if you do a robust chant program, you’ll print things yourself. For example, the Shrine of Christ the King in Chicago does Latin chants beyond Tantum ergo sacramentum at their Thérèse devotioms and Benediction, and I think something that good might need to always be made & printed in-house. It beats flipping pages. The hymnals often get things weird, like using modern notation (I get hung up on this) or leaving out the verses and collects for the big ones like the Marian antiphons, the Te Deum, and the Veni Creator
    Spiritus    .

    I'm glad they mention doctrine, but you often fudge something, even in good and older hymns. The trouble is, I think, nowadays the fudging is onesided, encouraging the navelgazing that is so common among contemporary Catholics or encouraging one aspect of teaching disorderedly, e.g. songs about the Eucharist which focus on the banquet aspect dominate modern texts. And some texts are not fudged...

    But what about music? Not all hymns have bad texts, but the music is bad and ill-suited for divine worship, which admittedlg is a hard sell. Are they going to perpetuate the way Catholics in the USA sing “Holy God, We Praise Thy Name”? (It’s annoying, and no one else does it; also, all the verses, please!).

    I also wonder about Protestant texts and authors. Some are wonderful, but more or less appropriate for Mass or at least parts of Mass. Take “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” for example. I think one can use it, but IMHO it works better as a recessional, say for Holy Cross Day, than as an entrance hymn.

    I’m confused as to the required permission for choral pieces. Taking that strictly would mean a lot of paperwork for someone trying to build a robust sacred music program.

    Props to the bishop, however, for being willing to take the heat.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • MichaelDickson
    Posts: 419
    I suspect (I do not have first-hand knowledge of that diocese) that for many many parishes, what the Bishop is mandating will be revolutionary, and a light-year-sized step forward. It certainly would be the case in my own diocese. (Apart from my own parish and one other that is 100 miles from here, I have no idea where one would go to hear Latin propers, and with just a few more exceptions, chanted propers at all.)
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,700
    .
    Thanked by 1Caleferink
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,315
    The bishop mentioned Archbishop Sample’s previous letter and work. He also noted elseswhere that the presbyteral council was involved in the drafting, so I don’t think it took the clergy by surprise.

    One criticism PrayTell folks had was that someone would have to teach congregations. Apparently the diocese works regularly with its musicians through workshops.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Good breakdown, Matt. It's not perfect, but I think it is overall a good improvement.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,315
    Thanks. I was even sympathetic to Fr. Ruff’s criticism of the hymnal timeline.

    One wonders at the response by PrayTell readers who don’t like it. At that point, it becomes obstinate, especially if you have the skills (as one reader found necessary) to implement such a program but choose not to do so. Someone has to be the one to do the tough things, or otherwise no one will ever do it.
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    There is nothing being asked for that would be difficult to implement. My parish has been singing the Roman Missal chants since 2011. Granted, we are the only parish in town singing them. When multi-parish groups meet, folks from other parishes tell us they don't know the mass parts. Oh, well!

    Diocesan Hymnal: Sounds good in theory, but could result in a pit of quicksand. I would hope my diocese never does that, because the lowest common denominator will prevail.
    Thanked by 2CCooze ClergetKubisz
  • PaxMelodious
    Posts: 442
    And what exactly will happen to a naughty parish that doesn't implement some or all of this directive? Excommunication? Fire the volunteer organist who couldn't convince the rest of the parish to do what they were told? Public flogging by His Lordship?

    No matter how worthy the aims might be, I cannot see that this sort of directive is the way to take parishes on a journey from here to there.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    No matter how worthy the aims might be, I cannot see that this sort of directive is the way to take parishes on a journey from here to there.


    Do you have a better idea? I often hear people say (in various contexts) that rules aren't how we should govern, but we should govern with instruction and gently bringing people along.

    But here's the thing: we're fallen humans, and at a certain point, we need rules.

    Also, this isn't an isolated document. The bishops of this diocese have been teaching and enacting sacred music for quite a while, and this is just the next step.
    Thanked by 2irishtenor ClergetKubisz
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,315
    But they would want/expect us to know the large number of settings used in their parish... Haugen, Haas, etc. We have probably four or five settings in use during any one week at Steubenville (if parts are sung, the music group leader has free reign, except if the celebrant doesn’t want to deal with the Latin, but the English setting is still up to the leader’s choosing). That is before we get to the English missal chants and Mass XVIII for the Sanctus & Agnus Dei.

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980

    No matter how worthy the aims might be, I cannot see that this sort of directive is the way to take parishes on a journey from here to there.


    It surely worked in the sixties to take parishes from there to here. In any event, it is a start and better than doing nothing. How much will it succeed? I suppose they wont know until they try.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,799
    One would hope that the 2017 hymnal deadline wasn't rashly decided on without the advice of expert musicians who already have a head start. But then No. 3 (the Communion Antiphon to a very simple tone that everyone can sing at every Sunday Mass) really doesn't sound like it was thought up by someone familiar with the gregorian propers. "Good luck" indeed, as some are saying at Pray Tell.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,315
    I mean, the LC Simple Gradual SEP could be used antiphonally and sung by the congregation. But I see the point: it could really stall things in the future.

    But I do wonder why some over there think the hymn is of equal value to the sung proper... I thought chant had pride of place, etc. Sigh.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    It's a bold move, if some of the terms used are not defined yet (e.g., "some of the time throughout the year"). It might be good to define this, perhaps, as "for all weekend Masses, at least once per month".

    I'm pleased to see that the instruction is coming from the bishop himself and not from a subordinate such as a diocesan director of music.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,700
    .
  • WiesOrganista
    Posts: 128
    As for which Communion chants will be allowed, Abp. Sample's instruction made it clear which sources of the chants were to be used, and this builds on that directive.

    I imagine that Pius X removing mini-operas from the Mass and instructing the people to sing the parts of the Mass proper to them was controversial at the time.

    On a side note, I'm glad the jury finally returned the verdict on Bishop John's musical/liturgical leanings and he is building on the reforms of Abp. Sample rather than dismantling them.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Reval
    Posts: 186
    The wonderful thing about this instruction, is that it will make parish music more uniform throughout the diocese. Thus people can't threaten a priest, "I don't like all this sad depressing Latin music! I'm going to switch to St. Folksy because they have guitar Mass". Because St. Folksy won't be having guitar Mass anymore. : ) I've always thought this is the only way to improve parish music, by removing the competition of parishes that cater to the lowest common denominator.
    Thanked by 1Jeffrey Quick
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,086
    I imagine that Pius X removing mini-operas from the Mass and instructing the people to sing the parts of the Mass proper to them was controversial at the time.

    It was. And largely a failure in the States.
    This is maybe a little draconian, but that's exactly what's needed.
  • Bobby Bolin
    Posts: 420
    I agree that the intent is very good. The idea of mandating a hymnal is tough, though. There is a lot of good music out there (although the bad outweighs the good by far). Creating a single hymnal to serve an entire diocese does not seem feasible. Think back to some of the hymnal projects that have been discussed on this site...
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,510
    It's easy to make a great hymnal.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen mattebery
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    But then No. 3 (the Communion Antiphon to a very simple tone that everyone can sing at every Sunday Mass) really doesn't sound like it was thought up by someone familiar with the gregorian propers.


    Well, after everyone finishes the simple proper, the schola/choir can chant the Gregorian. At least the congregation won't have to be directed to the translation, since they'll have just chanted it.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 986
    I'd be interested in acquiring one of those hymnals for my collection.
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    There is much to comment here, but IMO much to lament as well.

    The complete absence of mention of the Gregorian propers is most conspicuous; presumably such would be a reasonable “substitute”?

    THE MISSAL PROPERS ARE FOR SPEAKING, NOT SINGING. THE MISSAL PROPERS ARE FOR SPEAKING, NOT SINGING. THE MISSAL PROPERS ARE FOR SPEAKING, NOT SINGING. *sigh* OK, now I feel better.

    I wonder if the bishop means for the Creed to be sung as in the Missal. (!)

    A diocesan hymnal, honestly, is a very reasonable idea in theory. The concern I would have is that it will fill up with the likes of “Be Not Afraid”. It really has to be mandated, sadly; otherwise, people who want happy-clappy will “pastorally” ignore it.

    The requirement to run all sacred music by the bishop is really not that outlandish, given that it’s basically what GIRM sets forth. Of course, it also substantially retards development of a good choral program, which is likely not what is intended.

    This does feel like it was written up without consulting musicians.

    Is anyone here “on the ground” in this diocese? It would be fascinating to see how this plays out …
    Thanked by 2Ben Roborgelmeister
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,086
    The concern I would have is that it will fill up with the likes of “Be Not Afraid”.

    They want a balanced repertoire, with old and new hymns. And they're going to be looking hard for heresy. Yes, there will be many new hymns that people like to sing. How is this a bad thing? They might not be to my taste, but they're here.
    Thanked by 3mattebery Spriggo CHGiffen
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    Creating a single hymnal to serve an entire diocese does not seem feasible.


    Not only IS it feasible, it's going to be done.

    It's about time that a Bishop lays down the marker on the matter. As to 'no musician input,' that charge is made without any evidence. Do you really think that Bp. Sample's diocesan MD (now Bp. Doerfler's MD) was completely unaware of all this?
    Thanked by 2mattebery CHGiffen
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    I don't have a problem with a diocesan hymnal if it's done well but I do have a problem with banning all other hymnals. I predict that if (yes, if) and when (after all the delays) it goes into effect, it'll be largely ignored.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    it'll be largely ignored.


    Suffering the same fate as articles 36 & 54 of SC, eh?
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,093
    There will very likely still be missalettes with music available if not used when the bishop comes to town . . . .

    And I would question whether an ordinary had the authority to prohibit the use of the Graduale, Kyriale, Liber, et cet., without his permission but on its face his legislation would appear to claim that authority. His authority to proscribe polyphonic settings without his permission is probably stronger, though curious, shall we say. It's one thing to proscribe what Rome has not approved, it is another to proscribe what Rome has approved, shall we say.

    In any event, this may turn out to be an exemplum of be careful what you ask for. Or not. I wish all in that diocese well.

  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    ...
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,093
    Well, it's not what he wrote, and it wouldn't have been difficult to address. To me, this is evidence of people not thinking things through. Which is typical, not unusual.
    Thanked by 1Richard Mix
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,315
    Liam, I agree, although there shouldn’t be any of the objections about polyphony which have come up regarding the contents of the hymnal.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,093
    Sure, but eventually one would likely consider defining what is meant by polyphony, as it's not a dead life form, as it were.
  • JaredOstermann
    Posts: 488
    I REALLY hope someone is in charge of this process who is capable of thinking things through to a logical conclusion. Is there a well-formed and capable diocesan Office of Worship Director? Does anyone know? Maybe that is the case - otherwise this could easily be a spectacular flop from perspectives all over the spectrum of church music. The idea that ALL choral settings not in the hymnal must be submitted for approval is, on its face, ridiculous. However, we can hope that the aforementioned person-in-charge comes up with a comprehensive list of things that are pre-approved. Such as all official chant books, all scriptural texts, and all choral settings of official propers. Aaaand many, many other texts, say from the Anglican tradition, that are poetic but not directly scriptural (from hymn texts to psalm paraphrases to "O Thou the Central Orb"). How about "Ave Verum Corpus" - not scripture, not a proper chant...various Marian texts...the list goes on...

    Not to mention the subtext that a hymnal is the basis of Catholic liturgical music, and choral pieces are outliers that must be approved as some kind of addition to that "core".

    I have always been someone who dreamed of bishops taking the forefront with clear directives. That is why it is so frustrating to see a directive that runs such a risk of becoming laughable. Do we really want White Lists and Black Lists, or do we want positive intellectual and musical formation that produces musicians who do not need a white or black list? Items 1-2 of the instruction are very laudable; it is 4 that seems to leave the path of reason. And I'm not convinced about 3 - what, exactly, is a communion antiphon tone that is easy enough for everyone to sing? And then, are you allowed to compose your own? Do they have to be tested for singability somehow? As someone who has composed congregational communion antiphons for the year, I wonder how this would be policed. Not to mention, I often edit the antiphons to make them singing-length (IMHO). Andrew Motyka does the same with his communio project. Would our efforts be acceptable, since they do not present the whole text? I find the practical mechanics of item 3 very unclear.

    Whoever is in charge up there - you have three and a half years to make this a worthwhile and well-thought-out effort and not a cautionary tale.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,315
    I agree. To make that easier, you could say any polyphonic text is approved if it is based in a chant hymn. That would cover the Ave Verum.
  • Torculus
    Posts: 44
    I would not be happy if my diocese started work on a diocesan hymnal. Let's just say I have little confidence that a diocese where the "Mass of Renewal" has become the default (it was the "Heritage Mass") would come up with a hymnal consistent with what the CMAA is trying to promote.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    do we want positive intellectual and musical formation that produces musicians who do not need a white or black list?


    Well, "formation" has to start somewhere. Look around your own Diocese; how many MD's are actually "formed" in any Catholic sense of the term? Face it: more than 8 of 10 were "formed" (if at all) post-1970. Think that's the ideal? Think the 4-hymn sandwich is peak Catholic music?

    Or is your Diocese 100% chock-full of musicians (and congregants and priests) who know, love, understand, and have implemented all the Papal and Conciliar documents, (like Musicam Sacram, e.g.), are filled with the Chant culture, and train choirs to the standards of Paul Salamunovich or Bob Shaw?

    Another blogger would refer to this as "brick by brick." YMMV
    Thanked by 1kevinf
  • francis
    Posts: 10,825
    some bricks stack well.... others can crush your little toes.

    a "hymnal" is a very insignificant piece of a Catholic music program. we already have the perfect hymnal. it's called the GR. USE IT!!!!
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 1,023
    The great danger seems to me to be creating centralized structures of oversight that could very easily be abused by future bishops less sensitive to the tradition to crush it where found.
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    .
    ..
    ...
    ....
    .....
    Thanked by 2Spriggo mattebery
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,315
    You missed the point. The hymnal is an addendum to Catholic worship whereas the GR is an integral part of it, and explicit mention of the GR is nowhere to be found in the bishop’s letter.
    Thanked by 2francis CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    You missed the point. The hymnal is an addendum to Catholic worship whereas the GR is an integral part of it...


    I wish that were true in any practical sense. Visit Catholic worship in various places and count the number of GRs you see. Hymnals you wont have any trouble at all finding.
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    explicit mention of the GR is nowhere to be found in the bishop’s letter


    Good point. In general, one could respond that the Bishop cannot possibly be specific about everything musico/liturgical. But the GR should be included in any reform program.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • JaredOstermann
    Posts: 488
    dad29 - formation in most places is very low (or poor), in my experience - some pinnacle programs in each diocese excepted. That's exactly my point. Mere rules from the top are not sufficient, and carry the added risk of creating great rifts and discontent. You can't just decree that starting in 2020 everyone will do quality music. You have to form people intellectually and in skillset, to make long-lasting changes. The end goal is not just parishes where music directors sullenly avoid poor music to keep their jobs. And in a small, rural diocese like this one, I suspect that the majority of musicians are part-time or volunteer, and may just walk. Then who will implement the quality music?

    I understand, and on some level want to see bishops coming out against poor music in churches. But at the same time, getting into the White List-Black List mentality is not very constructive in reality. It also carries the risk of appearing arbitrary (and possibly of being arbitrary). If a song is not allowed in Marquette, but is common currency in most other US dioceses, how are we to say that there is any objectivity to the ban; any INHERENT problem with that piece (cases of clear heresy aside)? I am not confident that this diocese or any diocese is prepared on an intellectual level to argue that there is objectivity to banning certain music. It is incredibly hard to build a logically consistent case against a particular piece of music (again, extreme stylistic or textual outliers excluded) - Joseph Swain and some others have tried, but I have to say, I can have a field day playing Devil's Advocate with the arguments I see. On the other hand, it is much easier to build a case for certain other music as well-suited to the rite.

    Rather than seeing a diocesan uniformity of hymnals, I would prefer to see this instruction worded as follows (obviously in more formal language):

    Chant and traditional music are wonderful. We want more of that. THUS every parish and school will help to establish at least a basic fundamental set of chants. Then, the Office of Worship will work tirelessly to offer all possible assistance to music directors and pastors, in the form of workshops, individual parish consultations, and so forth. Further, every parish music director will be required to attend one diocesan musicians' gathering each year, which will feature addresses and workshops and discussions led by the bishop and other music professionals. Pastors and music directors will no longer be allowed to ban the church's core, traditional repertory in this diocese.

    Require formation. Disallow capricious abuse of power. Offer assistance in every possible way. But don't just require everyone to turn in their old hymnals for a new one. The hymnals are merely a symptom.

    Stepping off soapbox.
    Thanked by 4doneill kevinf eft94530 BruceL
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    Well, Jared, you actually answered your own objection.

    ...The end goal is not just parishes where music directors sullenly avoid poor music to keep their jobs.


    Actually, that IS the end goal. You object to the method. You also are concerned that a number of the part-time/volunteer people will simply walk.

    So what? What will be lost when they walk? Poorly-formed musicians who, by the way, were "forming" parish members just as badly. If I didn't know better, you seem to think that 'saving the musicians' jobs' is more important than 1) implementing the music which was specified by the Church (Chant) and at the same time, 2) DIS-implementing the music which intentionally or accidentally does NOTHING to save souls--or worse.

    The Bishop is the teacher, ruler, and sanctifier of souls in his Diocese. Even if you (and/or I) object to some of the music he wants, or hold that he does not want enough of the good stuff, he's the one who answers to God. Not we.

    Granted, it would be jus' wunnerful if a 1-week seminar in the summer would "form" all the musicians properly. But the previous Bishop issued a fine, clear, and concise document which--evidently--is being ignored in a lot of parishes.

    So the Bishop--who is responsible for all those souls--said "Enough!"
    Thanked by 2irishtenor mattebery
  • lmassery
    Posts: 422
    of course there will be some backlash for this, but I can't understand why some of you would consider this a terrible step because it's from the "top down." The GIRM came from the top down. The texts of the Roman Missal came from the top down. The new translation came from the top down. That's how Catholicism has always worked. I prefer to think of it as coming from history forward, rather than top down.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    I often hear people say (in various contexts) that rules aren't how we should govern, but we should govern with instruction and gently bringing people along.


    Yup, I've heard that too, and I think it's all in the interest of not hurting someone's feelings (or the fear of what might happen if they do).
    Thanked by 2CCooze CHGiffen
  • JaredOstermann
    Posts: 488
    dad29 - I'm not sure you mean to say this - or maybe I misunderstand you. Are you saying that your end goal is a situation where parish music directors sullenly avoid poor music? That seems like a depressing goal to me. There is so much more to being a church musician than (willingly or unwillingly) avoiding poor music. There's also doing good music, and well! Which requires constant energy and thought (what new good music can we pull of this year? How can we improve our repertoire? How can we improve the choir? How can we improve the formation and engagement of the congregation?). None of these proactive things happen with a sullen music director who is just going through the motions to keep a job. "Simple communion chant? Check. End of story, FOREVER. It may be banal, but that's what the mean bishop wants for us!" It is so easy to see the passive aggressive potential of this instruction...

    The simple chants and basic hymnal outlined in this instruction are a beginning, not an end (we hope!). My question: will the imposition of a beginning also provide the impetus for real liturgical and musical renewal?
  • ZacharyTurner
    Posts: 5
    To answer your question myself, Jared, I don't think it will, or I find it very unlikely that it will. Maybe I'm just a pessimist.

    While the two-week notice of "poorly-formed musicians" or at the very least the begrudging acceptance of a diocesan hymnal (assuming that it is a good one as well) may seem like an improvement and the right step toward liturgical renewal, this, I think, would end up doing more harm than good.

    Surely all of us (I hope) have experienced that moment, however infrequent, when we were approached by someone after a Mass who, say perhaps after performing a certain choral Mass setting, "had no idea that kind of thing could be done" and were from thereon changed by the experience. These "victories" I think contain the essence of the kind of renewal all of us seek to awaken in others.

    Perhaps I am wrong, but the implementation of a diocesan hymnal seems to alienate the very people it is trying to form. And a "good riddance" attitude toward those who may not like it does nothing to encourage renewal or foster formation. It rather does quite the opposite. It is not about "being positive" or not "hurting other people's feelings". We want to be effective in instructing those who are ignorant (however willingly).

    In the diocese in which I work, we established a Core Repertoire. It is a small pamphlet with hymn suggestions, psalm settings, antiphons, etc. and a thoughtful reflection on music and the liturgy by our bishop. Every church was asked to use it in the planning and execution of there liturgies...most of them probably didn't. Recently, I had the pleasure of collaborating with our Archdiocesan Music Director for a Sung Vespers program inaugurating the Year of Mercy at our cathedral. It was truly a wonderful liturgical ceremony (and remember I'm a pessimist). 700 - 800 people attended and THEY SANG! This included several parish musicians of the diocese. After the reverent ceremony, which drew heavily from our Core Repertoire, people were buzzing about their experiences and were truly excited to have participated in such an event. I would argue that this kind of formation was more effective than if we would have implemented the Core Repertoire as the singular resource at the musicians' disposal within the diocese.
    Thanked by 2Richard Mix JaredOstermann
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    You're right, I was not clear.

    The end goal is avoiding poor music. If parish MD's cop a 'tude about it, they can leave. Don't let the door hit 'em.

    I'm well-acquainted with the job of a music director, by the way. But the FIRST job of a music director is to do what the Church wants done--which happens to EXclude lousy music--and which happens to INclude "singing the Mass."

    In the instance where there is no MD because they didn't like the rules, well, then, at least the congregation will not be singing music which is ....ahhh.....forming them in the wrong way.
    Thanked by 3Reval chonak ClergetKubisz
  • Reval
    Posts: 186
    Hmmm. When our bishop travels to different parishes where he will celebrate Mass, there are musical suggestions sent ahead of time. One of these gentle instructions is to use the Chabanel psalms. Do you know how often I have seen the bishop celebrate Mass in different parishes? At least ten. Do you know how many times I have heard the Chabanel Psalms? Exactly zero. Sometimes you need the benevolent dictator approach. It may be painful for a few years, but in ten years' time the diocese will be much better off.
    Thanked by 3mattebery hilluminar lmassery
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,700
    Not necessarily.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Liam Adam Wood
Add a Comment