It happened: Traditionis custodes (TLM crackdown) (Note: discussion is on hiatus.)
-
Well, that escalated quickly.
-
It occurs to me, musically speaking, this could mean all Latin texts along with the banning of the TLM will now from hence-forth, or soon thereafter, be also banned and only vernacular allowed... or am I missing something? Perhaps that is a loop hole at the present moment? (just thinking out loud)
-
You definitely didn't miss that slippery slope fallacy. The church's liturgical norms still call for the use of Latin and the singing of Gregorian chant. No hint that those will be amended.
A hope of mine is that Latin and Gregorian chant will increase in use at Novus Ordo Masses as a result of today's legislation. Scoff, if you will, and I do take a long view... but I hope traditionalist liturgical sensibilities will be redirected towards improving the celebration of the NO Mass in parishes all over.Thanked by 1Richard Mix -
It occurs to me, musically speaking, this could mean all Latin texts along with the banning of the TLM will now from hence-forth, or soon thereafter, be also banned and only vernacular allowed... or am I missing something? Perhaps that is a loop hole at the present moment?
The NO in Latin has always been licit, even if non-existent since SP, and the existence of GR1974, GS, and so on would imply that Latin will always be available in the NO. It's the CMAA and groups like it that have had to scale the mountain of adapting Gregorian forms to English texts; the Church seems to have had no interest in promulgating vernacular chant resources, but has continued to promulgate Latin chant resources since the Council. -
Exactly my thinking... theoretical versus reality. I once tried to teach Mass VIII gloria to a parish where I was the DoM and all hell broke loose in the entire diocese and Latin was banned by the bishop not long thereafter.The NO in Latin has always been licit, even if non-existent -
I think this is likely: The Archpriest of St. Peter's has banned the canons of the basilica from chanting the Office in Latin: only Italian is permitted, and at Mass only the Kyrie (which is technically Greek), Gloria, Sanctus, Paternoster, and Agnus Dei may be sung in Latin if the Maestro di Cappella Sistina requests it: NB: the Sistina only sings at PAPAL Masses in the Basilica, the Cappella Giulia (the choir of the Basilica) is not granted this permission.
Also, Libraria Editrice Vaticana (sp), is not longer selling the Latin editions of the Missal of 2002, the Liturgia Horarum, etc., AND has forbidden other publishers from publishing them.
It isn't just the TLM, it's Latin in general, and with it the Liturgical Patrimony of the Latin Rite. (And I'm the one who doesn't accept Sacrosanctum Concillium?) -
Given the abruptness and cruelty of this motu proprio, I think that if they really wanted to ban Latin wholesale, they would've done it right here and now. It also would have been the perfect excuse.
-
I thought, if I read the lead up to this correctly, what touched all this off were disputes between both Italian and French bishops with the Traditionalists. I wasn't aware of that dissension in the U.S. As to how this will shake out, I don't think anyone knows. As venerable Cooze noted somewhere, nothing much may change in this country. But no one knows for sure.
-
You have a copy of that?
At the very least, you can find it here: http://blog.messainlatino.it/2021/06/breaking-news-la-nuova-governance-per.html
(https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-mass-in-st-peters-basilica-must-be-in-italian-not-latin) -
Archbishop Salvatore Cordiloeone of San Francisco told CNA July 16 that “The Mass is a miracle in any form: Christ comes to us in the flesh under the appearance of Bread and Wine. Unity under Christ is what matters. Therefore the Traditional Latin Mass will continue to be available here in the Archdiocese of San Francisco and provided in response to the legitimate needs and desires of the faithful.”Bishop Edward Scharfenberger of Albany wrote that “With respect to the celebration of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reforms of 1970, I wish to reiterate the great pastoral and spiritual good that has been experienced by those who have been and who are engaged in this form of the Liturgy. I would also like to acknowledge the many valuable contributions made to the life of the Church through such celebrations.”The Diocese of Arlington told CNA that all parishes that had planned on offering Masses in the Extraordinary Form would be able to do so.
We've been told in our diocese that we at least have this Sunday... and he's posted on twitter that...
I hate feeling like certain bishops thoroughly enjoy having new found power to hold over people's heads... just for the fun of it.Part of the challenge of the two manners of celebrating the Mass, pre-Vatican II and the following, is how each following either rejects or mocks the other. Both are the Mass.
.
I hear from the folks who follow the older celebration ore and they often reject the Council. If you reject one or the other, you reject Jesus. The Mass is dictate by the Magisterium and not by individual opinions. -
Quo Primum saidTherefore no one, whosoever he be, is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition; nor is he allowed temerariously to act against it.
Accordingly, should anyone presume to commit such an act, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
An interesting read, even if from before today (that looked toward today). -
Um, let's not be ahistorical.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/pope-st-pius-v-and-quo-primum-did-the-pope-intend-to-bind-his-successors-from-changing-the-tridentine-mass-1132Did the Pope Intend to Bind His Successors from Changing the Tridentine Mass?
...
The second is the confusion about the binding force of Quo Primum. That is, whom did the Pope intend to bind? Clearly, from the text itself, we see that he intended to do exactly what we would expect (with a proper understanding of papal authority and the disciplinary character of liturgical law). That is, with some exceptions, he intended to bind the Church to his liturgical policy until such time as it was changed by competent (i.e., papal) authority, and therefore "in perpetuity" if it was never changed.
Thanked by 1CharlesW -
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/quo-primum.htmFirst of all, for the sake of argument, let us assume that it was something merely disciplinary. It would not follow logically, therefore, that the creation of the Novus Ordo was permissible. Because the Church's doctrine regarding liturgy is formulated in many pronouncements-----infallible pronouncements-----before Quo Primum was ever issued.
It was the Council of Trent that solemnly declared anathema-----that is, it is a heresy-----to say that any pastor in the Church, whosoever he may be, has the power to change the traditional rite into a new rite. This is found in Session 7 Canon 13 on the "Sacraments in General:"
"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."
For six hundred years, the Popes made a solemn profession at their Coronation, a public and solemn profession, that they did not have the power to change the liturgy. Then they invoked the wrath of God upon themselves if they should dare to change it or allow anyone to change it....Thus, regardless of Quo Primum, it had been a well established teaching of the Catholic Faith that the Roman rite cannot be trashed and replaced with a new rite. To do so is contrary to the law of God as defined by the infallible Magisterium of the Church.He declared solemnly and definitively that Quo Primum cannot ever be revoked or modified.
Why did he do this? Because it is an application of the Divine Law as defined by the Church regarding the Roman Rite specifically, the Roman Church specifically.
So it is not merely disciplinary, it is a disciplinary decree rooted in the doctrine of the faith. There are other legal formulations used in other decrees saying "henceforth in perpetuity" but we are not dealing with something so simple as this. We are dealing with a very explicit pronouncement wherein he says, "by our Apostolic authority . . . we order and declare . . . that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law."
However, even if the Pope had never issued Quo Primum, the doctrine of the Church had been previously defined. The proper liturgy of the Roman Church is the Roman Rite. This is the faith. This is the teaching of the Church. So even if Quo Primum never existed and even if Pope Pius V had not codified the Missal, Catholics would still be bound their customary traditional rites, the so-called Tridentine Rite, and other similar variations of the same. This is the doctrine of the faith and it can never change. -
A pope can not bind his successors on a liturgy. He has no more power to bind his successors than his successors have to change it.
-
Prove me wrong. Pius V had no more power to bind Francis than Francis would have to bind Pius V.
It's not about binding a successor in the juridical sense. It's about the ethos of the Church of which the Pope is supposed to be a guardian of. Trying to forbid Catholics to stop living in accordance with that ethos of the Church is wrong no matter who attempts to do it, including the Pope.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
Bye bye to reconciliation with the Society
If this is referring to SSPX, it may be quite the opposite. PF has even further "semi-regularized" SSPX in his Pontificate. Arguably this may have a perhaps intended effect of driving trads into SSPX where they can be dealt with as a block. -
The ethos of the Church includes the most recent ecumenical council at which the Church fathers decreed that the Roman Missal was to be revised. Post-conciliar popes are guardians of that revised tradition, not a tradition set in stone and not an unrevised, pre-conciliar tradition.
Pope Francis is directing the bishops to ensure that Catholics worldwide live and pray in continuity with the Church's Vatican II ethos, which is as it should be. -
Quo Primum said
AFAIK Quo Primum also covers the Roman Breviary.
Someone should wake up Pius X from his eternal slumber and tell him he's in big trouble, as he completely changed the Roman Breviary in 1910 and made the one Quo Primum speaks of, illicit.
Interestingly Quo Primum saidhe Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper – for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass
Funnily enough, there has always been more than "one appropriate manner of reciting the psalms" in the Church: the Monastic Breviary has, since the reforms of the Roman Breviary at Trent, considerably differed.
OraThanked by 1CharlesW -
"Pope Francis is directing the bishops to ensure that Catholics worldwide live and pray in continuity with the Church's Vatican II ethos, which is as it should be."
Interesting that he's ensuring that faithful Catholics who just happen to be at TLM have to join with the rest of the Catholics in the NO, of which less than 1/3 even believe in the real presence... but the TLM is the issue...
Get real. -
Post-conciliar popes are guardians of that revised tradition, not a tradition set in stone and not an unrevised, pre-conciliar tradition. [...]
...Church's Vatican II ethos...
There's the Hermeneutic of Rupture.
The Popes are the guardians of the entire Tradition, of which the Reformed Liturgy is only a tiny part, at this point a scant 50-odd years. The Reformed liturgy must be celebrated in a manner consistent with the Tradition from which it comes. If the liturgical past of the Church has nothing to teach us, then we risk a break.
And it must be borne in mind that no reform is itself irreformable (if that's a word). Some aspects of Pius XII's reformed Holy Week were "un-reformed" in the Novus Ordo; some aspects of the Pauline Reforms might also be undone at a future date. And to try to stifle scholarly discussion about such "un-reforming" as being against Vatican II (which only issued vague suggestions, not well-defined instructions for reform--Yes, I've read Sacrosanctum several times over the years: AND in Inclusive Language, no less) or "schismatic" is unjust: No one was stifling Jungmann in the 50s when he suggested using the vernacular and celebrating versus populum.
The unfortunate thing, I have noticed, is that some apologists for the Novus Ordo are just as guilty of turning the revised liturgy into their Idol as they accuse traditionalists of being toward the Missal of Pius V, as if the reform itself and its outcome were somehow directed by the hand of God, that the Editio Typica arrived in the meeting room on golden tablets: something with which its authors would strenuously disagree. The Great Mistake of Paul VI was trying to condense 100+ years of liturgical reform into five, and not allowing things to grow organically. But I suppose this was the optimism of The Atomic Age. -
Cardinal Burke’s Assessment
In comments to the Register, Cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura, noted what he sees as a number of flaws in Traditionis Custodes, saying he could not understand how the new Roman Missal is the “unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite,” as the new motu proprio states. The Extraordinary Form of the Mass “is a living form of the Roman Rite and has never ceased to be so,” Cardinal Burke noted.
He also could not understand why the motu proprio takes effect immediately, as the decree “contains many elements that require study regarding its application.”
The American cardinal further noted that in his long experience he has not witnessed the “gravely negative situation” Francis describes in his letter.
While some faithful may have “erroneous ideas,” he said, he has found the faithful in question generally “have a profound love for the Church and for their pastors in the Church” and “in no way ascribe to a schismatic or sedevacantist ideology. In fact, they have often suffered greatly in order to remain in the communion of the Church under the Roman Pontiff,” he said.
Cardinal Burke added that if there are situations “of an attitude or practice contrary to the sound doctrine and discipline of the Church, they should be addressed individually by the pastors of the Church, the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops in communion with him.”
Cardinal Burke also questioned the motu proprio’s tone, observing that it is “marked by a harshness” towards faithful who worship in the Extraordinary Form.
“I pray that the faithful will not give way to the discouragement which such harshness necessarily engenders but will, with the help of divine grace, persevere in their love of the Church and of her pastors,” he said...
The survey to which Francis refers in the motu proprio and which he says led him to issue the motu proprio reportedly received only a moderate response, and more than half of those who responded had a favorable or neutral view of the reception of Summorum Pontificum.
Cardinal Burke said that “given the drastic nature of the legislation, it would seem fair to give a detailed report of the result of the survey, which also verifies the scientific nature of the survey.
“I know many Bishops who are very close to the faithful who worship according to the Usus Antiquior [Extraordinary Form] and to the priests who serve them,” the cardinal said. “It is my hope that they were also heard through the survey.” -
"With the proper permissions, you may celebrate the TLM, except that there are no locations at which it may be licitly celebrated."
Many US Bishops will be sending letters to Rome asking about this, that, or the other thing--after a few months of 'due consideration.' They know that it will take Rome another few months to 'clarify.' THEN those Bishops will write another letter, after another few months of consideration, .....etc., etc.
At least one Bishop has already begun 'considering' the requirements in Francis' letter.
Heh.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
Interesting that he's ensuring that faithful Catholics who just happen to be at TLM have to join with the rest of the Catholics in the NO, of which less than 1/3 even believe in the real presence... but the TLM is the issue...
Get real.
I just want to take a step back here and note that Pope Francis' semi-abrogation of the TLM is motivated by his fears of rising rejection of Vatican II amoung the faithful.
The comment quoted here, and many others on this thread, demonstrate that Pope Francis' concerns are very much valid. -
Some of the wording of this document and the internal contradictions in it are quite confusing.
I find it rather suspect that the “Holy Ghost” would inspire such a document. I’m catching whiffs of that smoke Paul VI was talking about.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
Perhaps you and I can practice social distancing from those who want us to hold hands at the Our Father?Thanked by 1tomjaw
-
The Great Mistake of Paul VI was trying to condense 100+ years of liturgical reform into five, and not allowing things to grow organically. But I suppose this was the optimism of The Atomic Age.
Not quite - panic about the visible effects of lifting the lid on reform pushed things into five years, the Great Mistake was in not keeping the pruning and grafting in process (and the feeding and nourishing). Organic growth cannot be frozen and still live. -
@a_f_hawkins : Perhaps, rather than either/or, it's both/and.
-
I don’t get involved in these discussions anymore but people seem to have missed this paragraph. I sure did.
If I had to guess, the net effect is that most things will stay the same, but in the future, everyone will have to go through an institute or order “of pontifical right.” As an administrative matter, after many years of “consideration,” this may prove wise, as the moments that have most made me want to simply walk away from the Church have all involved liturgy. Often, the issues were not serious. The anger and consequent sin were.
This could prevent endless fights between Trudie Traddie and Spring Granola-Tofu, crinkly salt-and-pepper mane swaying as she pounds into the Cassio for yet one more rendition of Here I Am. And leave the rest of us in peace to focus on the Mass.
Kenneth
§ 5. to proceed suitably to verify that the parishes canonically erected for the benefit of these faithful are effective for their spiritual growth, and to determine whether or not to retain them;
-
Kenneth, that section 5 refers to already existing TLM parishes. No new TLM parishes nor groups are to be established. The whole church is to be led by bishops back to liturgical unity in celebrating the Novus Ordo Mass exclusively. If anything has been missed by people commenting here, it's these sections in the letter that accompanied the motu proprio. In that letter, Francis told bishops:It is up to you to proceed in such a way as to return to a unitary form of celebration, and to determine case by case the reality of the groups which celebrate with this Missale Romanum.
Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.”
The TLM's days are numbered, in other words. Pope Francis has decreed that it be phased out.
With the abrogation of Summorum Pontificum, the legal fiction of Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form has been abrogated also. The Novus Ordo is not the Ordinary Form (anymore): it is the unique and normative liturgy of the Roman Rite. The TLM is not the Extraordinary Form (anymore): it is the pre-Conciliar liturgy that has been superseded by the new Mass, still permitted to be celebrated as an exception, gradually to be eliminated as a permissible liturgical option in the Roman Church.
The liturgical reform is irreversible. -
>> The liturgical reform is irreversible.
until any future pope decides to reverse this motu proprio, yes? -
I think we said the same thing, MarkB, except the pontifical right groups are not going anywhere soon.
As someone said a long time ago, “the Church I love, she moves slowly.” The letter is guidance, the motu proprio is law, and as each bishop feels toward a resolution, we will know what will happen. It took many years for forms that predated the Council of Trent to die out—in some cases centuries.
Even St John Paul and Benedict felt that the reform was irreversible. True believers felt that the preceding 13 years were a move toward Restoration, but pretty much only they did. I can think of two bishops and no Popes who thought that. Many Popes have made peremptory decisions reversing course, and it shocked the faithful. We live in a age of documents so that is what concerns us now. We all do need to have a clear idea if what infallibility means and what it does not. Such dramatic shifts cause scandal, in my opinion, but they are hardly unprecedented.
Kenneth -
until any future pope decides to reverse this motu proprio, yes?
No, because Vatican II decreed liturgical reform. If you want to play that silly hypothetical game, it would take a future ecumenical council to reverse the path of liturgical reform that Vatican II embarked on.
Anyone who's angry, maybe be angry with yourselves for not realizing or not accepting that Summorum Pontificum was never going to be a permanent arrangement. It was intended for mutual enrichment between the NO and the TLM, with the Novus Ordo clearly having liturgical priority, only as long as was beneficial for the Church. The permissions quickly resulted in hardening of liturgical and Church divisions, contrary to the intent, so Pope Francis has wisely abrogated the arrangement and formally legislated that the only liturgical path forward is the reformed liturgy, the Novus Ordo.Thanked by 1Don9of11 -
angry... silly.... it's not worth trying to make a point here. should have known better.
-
Mark,
Help me follow the logic here.
"Unitary form of celebration" and Mass of Vatican II ....... simply don't belong in the same lexicographical universe, except under the category ANTONYMS.Thanked by 1mmeladirectress -
It's interesting that many "non-trads" see how wrongly this was done, while others just seem to say, "ha, you idiots..."
From someone named Brendan Malone:
I do not attend the Traditional Mass, but I am more than happy to stand in solidarity with my Catholic brothers and sisters who do.
In my humble opinion, today marks an unhealthy failing of pastoral care that will probably lead to greater disunity, most likely foster the growth of Sedevacantism, and almost certainly contribute to driving souls away from the Church.
Not only are there many more serious and pressing issues that require urgent attention from our leadership, but there appears to be no ‘synodality’, dialogue, or welcoming of people at the peripheries in any of this. All I see is unhelpful clericalism and an attempt to demand unhealthy uniformity in a Church that has always tolerated different rites, and prided itself on the diverse spiritualities of its members.
When I was younger, and more imprudent, I used to think that what the Church needed was disciplinary leaders who would wield battle-axes, without regard, at all and sundry who opposed them.
All of that changed when I experienced the leadership of Bishop Barry Jones (may God rest his soul). He never once wavered in the promotion of what was good and true, or the rejection of error, but he always did this as a true spiritual father to ALL of the sheep entrusted to his care. Pope Benedict XVI also modelled this same profoundly beautiful spiritual fatherhood during his tenure as Pope. The very reason the previous motu proprio was issued was to ensure that bridges were erected in places where there had previously been walls.
This taught me the vitally important lesson that good shepherds use their sticks on the wolves, not on their sheep, because they know that you will always catch more flies with a spoonful of honey than with a whole jar full of vinegar.
You see, what I was formerly seeking wasn’t actually good pastoral leadership, it was leaders who would exert political dominance over others. This is one of the very real fears I have in light this latest development - that the traditions of our faith have just been reduced to a political football in a toxic game that many other players, on all sides, will happily want to join to ensure that they can give things a good kicking of their own.
Yes, we’ve all met crazy Traddys (or ‘Tradicals’ as they are colloquially known).
So what?
I know many more good and compassionate Traddys who model genuinely caring virtue and love than I do ones who are stick-wielding authoritarians.
Here’s the thing, as much as we might want to Pharisaically pride ourselves on never having done such things ourselves, almost all of us have acted like stick-wielding authoritarians at one time or another.
I have had to deal with far more passive-aggressive manipulation, divisive clericalism and liturgical terrorism from vanilla Catholics than I ever have from Trad Catholics - and I know a lot of Trad Catholics!
I also dearly love all of my charismatic Catholic brothers and sisters too, but there are plenty of nutty-butty authoritarians in their ranks as well - I used to be one - yet no one seems to want their worship restricted (and nor should they!)
In Christianity we suppress evil things. We don’t suppress or restrict what is good, true and beautiful, even when bad or nutty-butty people might attach themselves to good, true and beautiful things.
If this is how the Church acted there would be no Church, because ALL of us are sinners who regularly act in ways that fail to reflect the true face of Christ and are harmful to the communal life and mission of the Church.
Regardless of our preferred form of worship, I think we would ALL be extremely wise to heed the words of Christ from Luke chapter nine:
“Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”
(One last thing - anyone who might be attempted to hurl insults at Pope Francis, please don’t. Such comments will be deleted. I know it can be really tempting at times to do this, but we are the people who have been called by Christ to pray for our leaders instead of preying on them.) -
Only it wasn't done wrongly. It is a necessary corrective measure to move the Roman Church back into unity in liturgical prayer.
The TLM should not be preserved indefinitely because Vatican II decreed that the liturgy be reformed. Pope Francis has clarified that the reformed liturgy is the Roman Church's normative liturgy.
In the interest of not beating a horse to death, I'm announcing in this post that I will not continue posting in this thread nor in the others that are on this similar topic from the past week or so. I've said everything I think I can contribute on this topic, and any future reader who goes through the posts will judge for himself whether I've been cogent. No need to repeat things already said, and I think there isn't anything to say that hasn't already been said by me or someone else. Maybe if a new topic thread arises in response to how the implementation of the motu proprio is being handled in different dioceses I'll have something to say about that or if Peter Kwasniewski writes an article evaluating the motu proprio... but the motu proprio itself? I think we've covered pretty much everything by now.
Thank you to all for the discussion.
I hope the Church will emerge with greater unity and beautifully and properly celebrated liturgy. -
@MarkB
What are you doing about making the N.O. the only path forward?
While you have taken on a job of trying to convince us to attend and beautify the N.O., I don't think you have managed to convince anyone here.
Anyway I will still continue my apostolate to draw people to the beauty of the Faith and the Traditional Mass.
For my diocese I will make the following predictions,
1. Our seminary will not reopen anytime soon.
2. We will see no new vocations to the diocese until we have a new pope.
3. ⅓ of our priests will be retiring in the next 10 years
4. ⅓ of our churches will close in the next 10 years
5. We are now a 'Missionary Diocese', but this activity will not see a growth in attendance at our N.O. Masses.
6. At best our N.O. Mass attendance will flatline after the massive falls due to Covid.
7. The number of TLM will stay the same or increase.
8. The number of people attending the TLM will double, within 10 years.
9. The SSPX will need to buy a church near their district house to accommodate the faithful.
10. These restrictions will not last 10 years!
In most of Europe, we will see N.O. Mass attendance continue to fall, more seminaries will close, and the number of clergy celebrating the N.O. will drop by 50%. -
Mark, simply chanting "the liturgical reform is irreversible" over and over does not prevent the next pope or the one three popes from now or twenty popes from now from doing a complete 180 and wiping this MP off of the map. If there's one thing we've learned from this, it's that such things are now very possible and to be expected. I understand that's what you WANT, but that's very different from it actually being realistically the case.Thanked by 1tomjaw
This discussion has been closed.
All Discussions 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 Discussions21,107
- General Music Discussion7,594
- Job Openings1,303
- Management of Music Programs834
- Choral Matters519
- Church Documents and Rubrics504
- CMAA Notes291
- Events651
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony528
- Hymnody821
- Gregorian Chant: General2,582
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis354
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology57
- Vernacular Plainsong671
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant66
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire414
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,208
- Recordings222
- Music for Hispanic Ministry151
- Music Education: Children205
- Music Education: General214
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism723
- Amusements170
- General Discussion1,000
- Opinions113