The Ordination of a New Archbishop Today
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Occasion like this, in my opinion, might work better with choral Sanctus. I'm sure there were many people from many different places, and were people who don't know this particular setting of Sanctus, so why not a beautiful choral Sacntus? and it's not possible to teach it to the congregation like in a local parish setting. (and Sanctus is not simple like acclamations or even Res. P that you can learn as you go.)
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I tend to agree, Mia. Although if I were directing this liturgy (and God willing someday I may), I would tend towards a full orchestral ordinary, even over Gregorian chant (which they used for the Kyrie, Gloria, and Agnus). But that's my preference, and I refuse to take the position that MANY have taken on this thread, which is that something is lacking because it doesn't fulfill my preferences. What happened musically at this Mass, whatever one may prefer to hear, was in line with liturgical legislation and superb.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,511
    All right, Gavin, count to ten...

    I've actually never formed an opinion on this subject before, much less written about it. But I had these two recent big experiences of the Colloquium and the Ordination, and once again I can only say that my feelings at the Ordination were a bit of a letdown, right at the time when I think there is a very good theological reason to raise the rafters, musically, theologically, and rationally.

    How is this for a rule: there is usually no compelling reason to sing a Sanctus that is completely different in style from the Kyrie and Agnus Dei. Therefore, generally speaking, it's much better to sing a single, coherent Mass setting at a given Mass. Particularly on a high occasion, it is perfectly fine to sing a choral Sanctus.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    I'm sorry if I've lost the thread or someone has mentioned it but the legal issues are all dealt with here
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Thanks Jeffrey. I found that it is dangerous for musicians to interpretate Church documents just literally always, requires much knowledge and understanding in the Church tradition and the true Spirit of the liturgy. As our Pope warned repeatedly, active participartion is often wrongly interpretated as external (and for the pragmatic reason as an end itself for the pastors as well as music directors, although this is not the case in this occasion.)
  • priorstf
    Posts: 460
    Seems there's an easy way out of the entire mess. Go ahead and sing the Mozart. Just be sure to pass out the words!
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,421
    Just a picky little observation with regard to the title of this thread -
    Bishops (and those above them) are Consecrated, not Ordained
  • Daniel Bennett PageDaniel Bennett Page
    Posts: 835
    In English-language usage, 'consecration of a bishop' is an Anglicanism.
    The common usage is 'ordination' for deacons, priests, and bishops.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,421
    Thanks. I was not aware that this was only Anglican usage.
    So, then, what of archbishops, cardinals & popes? (And abbots [mitred or not] & archabbots?)
    Are they 'ordained', 'consecrated', or.....
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,217
    Still, the term 'consecration' has some legitimacy, as it is used in the Latin texts of some Church documents: e.g., canon 379, which requires that a newly appointed bishop receive "episcopal consecration" within three months of receiving the apostolic letter of appointment, unless a legitimate impediment interferes.
Add a Comment