What my schola member found and is asking from the reading on the "Reform"
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Not to bring out old dispute on the 'Change and misunderstanding,' but hoping to help new chanters or people who are interested in sacred music.

    One of my schola who attended "Ward method" workshop in CUA brought a copy of "Chronicle of the Reform" by Msgr. Schuler to our schola, and one of the chanter, who wasn't really into music before, is devouring the writing and shocked about the misunderstanding, asked the followings;

    email 1
    "I am reading the folder cover to cover. It is so interesting. This is what I understand from the folder:

    Pope Pius X wrote Motu Proprio (one's own movement??) in 1902 on Liturgical Music because of concern over the Modernists. This is the same Pope who wrote an encyclical "on the Modernists" (I read it, it is very informative).

    Then after Vatican II, when it was time to implement the changes down to the parish level, the Modernists saw an opportunity to sneak in changes that they wanted to do. They translated the documents and claimed that the Official documents said things which the documents never actually did say.

    Is this how you understood it?"

    "I think it is because they did not read the documents. Just like Congress now is passing legislation that nobody reads (they are not even sure who wrote it); I am not saying that the Bishops were like Congress, but the language translation gave them an opportunity (maybe their Latin was not too strong) to do what they want. Below is an excerpt from pg 22 describing how the secular press got involved.

    Pg. 22-23 The press took over. American newspapers, both secular and ecclesiastical, announced that the American bishops had approved the use of guitars, folk music and the hootenanny Mass. Despite repeated statements from the Holy See prohibiting the use of secular music and words in the liturgy, the movement continued to be promoted in the United States and in Europe. Deception played a part, since American priests were allowed to think that the decision of the Music Advisory Board was an order from the bishops themselves…Decisions of liturgical matters need the approval of the entire body of bishops….The hootenanny Mass never came to the full body of bishops [for approval]; it did not have to. The intended effect had been achieved through the announcement of the action of the Music Advisory board and the publicity given to it by the national press. It was not honest, and further, it was against the expressed wishes and legislation of the Church.

    Meanwhile, the official directives of the post-conciliar commissions in Rome rarely reached most American priests. They knew only the commentaries on them provided by the liturgists… As a result the altars were turned versus populum; choirs were disbanded; Gregorian chant was prohibited; Latin was forbidden in some dioceses; church furniture and statuary were discarded. These innovations were thought to be the orders of the Second Vatican Council; rather they were the results of a conspiracy….

    Not the least important point made by Musicam sacram is found in its very title, “sacred music.’ This reaffirms the statement of the council that the purpose of the church music is the “glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful.” Some were trying to assert that all things are sacred, and thus all music was suitable for the liturgy. They were in fact saying that “nothing is sacred,” and the result was a desacralizaion.

    That is pretty much as I see it. They used ever loophole they could find to do what they wanted to. My problem is: Why didn't somebody stop them? My guess is the corruption was so far up the ladder that no one would listen to the underlings crying for tradition."

    I think Bishops and priests need to have sincere answers to the questions like above when the people of faith ask them.
  • G
    Posts: 1,388
    I think that's a pretty fair assessment, from what I have read, and what I have heard from people who lived through it (people on both sides of the divide,) that there was a great reliance on and trust put in 2nd- and 3rd-hand sources, (in some cases, secular sources.)
    But I would argue against use of the word "corruption" because it might be taken to indicate that what was done was in bad faith, and I think many people did the wrong thing with good intentions.
    And despite sloth being a sin, I don't know that laziness rises to the level of of "corruption."
    And of course there were those who defied authoritative directives because they they truly did not believe that the authoritative bodies were authoritative, (in an earlier age, such people were called "protestants"...)

    Save the Liturgy, Save the World
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,574
    re email 1

    Motu Proprio == own initiative == own accord == http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10602a.htm

    The motu was in 1903.
    There were problems after that well before 1963; see ...
    1947-nov-20 Mediator Dei
    Anyone who has not yet read, in its entirety, this Encyclical is really missing out.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Thank you for the link to the documents. I believe I read it before. I think we in this forum all agree that the Church documents are our firm guidelines, and we try to read as much as we can. But the documents don't really tell you HOW to go about it. (and many people can interprete them differently and misunderstand the intention of the Church too.) And many musicians don't agree on how to implement the instructions. But I think that's inevitable because their situation in various parishes is different. (the hard one is when you don't have a priest who don't have much knowledge or interest in sacred music. And most seminarians are not getting enough education on this. I feel there's a big gap between what the Church asks to do and what the local seminaries do. And as we know without the priests support, it's almost impossible to do what the Church asks in the documents.)
    At any rate, I learn that many changes done so fast seem to be calling for a disaster or end up being just a 'quick fix,' so we have to be careful when we implement changes.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,197
    It seems there are many problems with documents relating to music. They stretch back over quite a few years but are not drawn together into something authoritative. Many of those documents were never cancelled or discarded, they have just become irrelevant in any practical sense because they are no longer followed. So we have all these documents with no authority behind them. The Vatican doesn't enforce them, and neither do the bishops. It is really unimportant how we feel or what we think about them, since authority in the Church is based neither on our thoughts nor our feelings. The same goes for likes and dislikes. Until competent authority merges the documents into something the Church is willing to enforce, I see little hope for change. The different musical factions will continue doing as they please.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Someone sent me the following, and I was very excited at first. But then it occur to me that the Church HAS been encouraging Chant Ordinaries, and they have been in many 'popular' hymnals already. But not many people, at least in our congregation know about it, don't even know they are there, because they never sing them.

    June 2009 Meeting of the Committee on Divine Worship

    “With the exception of the popular setting of the Lord's Prayer by Robert J. Snow, the Committee is open to the inclusion of the new chants that have been provided by ICEL. It will also request that publishers make those chant settings in the Missal the first option provided in participation aids. Other settings could be used as well, but this approach is meant to encourage use of the chants.”

    I'm not sure whether that "encourage " is going to make much difference. (Maybe 'mandate' might work.) I'll try to be positive.