Stewards of the Tradition
  • Ioannes Andreades
    Posts: 310
    It seems that the forum has not discussed this recent document from the USCCCB http://www.usccb.org/about/divine-worship/stewards-of-the-tradition-table-of-contents.cfm. Part four seems to be especially distressing, as it starts out as if it working in tight connection with what Pope Benedict wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis, but at least in the discussion of sacred music, what is found bares scant relationship to what Pope Benedict actually wrote. I hope that this is not indicative of documents to come.
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    USCCB Document:
    Liturgical Song (SacCar, no.42)
    Liturgical song has a preeminent place in the ars celebrandi, for not only is it a means of active participation, but it is another source of beauty that can lift hearts and inspire worship. We commend those who have dedicated themselves as composers and pastoral musicians who enrich our worship and enable our songs of praise. The development of a repertory of vernacular music for the Liturgy over the past fifty years is a gift for which we are grateful and which we continue to promote. We also seek to improve the quality of our celebrations in light of the USCCB 2007 guidelines Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship. To rely only on the music of a single genre or style for the celebration of the Liturgy is to diminish the breadth and depth of our liturgical heritage and to risk the exclusion of the legitimate contributions of particular cultures and composers. We wish to underscore the importance of the words set to music for the Liturgy, and that they must accurately reflect the theology of the Liturgy or be drawn from the liturgical texts themselves.

    Pope Benedict:
    Liturgical song

    42. In the ars celebrandi, liturgical song has a pre-eminent place. (126) Saint Augustine rightly says in a famous sermon that "the new man sings a new song. Singing is an expression of joy and, if we consider the matter, an expression of love" (127). The People of God assembled for the liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129). Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131).
    Thanked by 1Eric D. Williams
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Please correct me if I am wrong. Is it true that a body of Bishops do not have authority to speak toward formulating any kind of church law unless it receives Recognitio? ESPECIALLY if it contradicts what the Pope has already issued in an encyclical?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    This part seems especially misleading to me:

    To rely only on the music of a single genre or style for the celebration of the Liturgy is to diminish the breadth and depth of our liturgical heritage and to risk the exclusion of the legitimate contributions of particular cultures and composers.


    Is not the very breadth and depth of our liturgical heritage Gregorian Chant, polyphony and organ as stated over and over in many church documents?

    In the mind of the USCCB, I would truly like to know which contributions are NOT legitimate. It seems to me that by failing to name illegitimate contributions, all are considered legitimate.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    >>Gregorian Chant, polyphony and organ
    That's three genres

    >>Haas, Haugen, SLJ
    That's one genre.
    Thanked by 2Kathy Jenny
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Adam:

    In my experience, the foundational rules that govern the composition of chant, polyphony and organ are realized in the tradition that has been built over hundreds of years within the Church through the practice of the craft of its composers. It is continuous, ever developing and ever new, but retains the 'genre' (thread) of sacred music as defined by that very tradition.

    In other words, it seems that the 'genre' of sacred music is primarily rooted in the chant, and finds a worthy expression also in organ music and polyphony (counterpoint and chordal harmonics) that all uphold, promote and echo back to the chant itself and give it 'pride of place'.

    That said, then one must logically deduce that music that expresses something alien to that 'genre' is then illegitimate.

    I have one question for you Adam. What music (genre or style) would you consider illegitimate to the liturgy?
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Here we go again.....on the merry go round....sigh
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen jpal Wendi
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    melo:

    Are you riding on the horse or the zebra?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,159
    Yeah, I'd read this as Adam does. There are probably quite a few churches whose repertoire comes narrowly from 1970-1995, and probably none whose music consists only of chant. In practice, where chant is sung, polyphony also appears, and usually hymns from 1600-1950 along with organ music even into the 20th century.
    Thanked by 5Adam Wood Andrew_Malton CHGiffen Jani IanW
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    WWJD, Francis? Ride the donkey then dismount. Me too.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Someone reading that document and trying to use it to support The Habitual Music of the Roman Rite is fooling themselves.

    (Like people who use the word "liberal" to mean "radical adherence to a small set of modernist beliefs" rather than "open-minded, free-thinking, and of a generous spirit.")

    Not that, you know, it won't continue to happen.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,204
    What a lot of self-referent twaddle, from a bunch of liberal-minded elitists bent on digging their trenches and fighting for what has already been debunked and set aside by serious-minded, orthodox sacred musicians. I seriously doubt that this was even written by any of the bishops (certainly not from the CDW), but rather by an advisory committee, such as the FDLC.

    They seem convinced, as many folk of their stripe, that if they simply mention Benedict, we'll all perk up, behave as if we're being taken seriously and declare it a victory. Do they really think we're so mollified by references to Benedict that we won't notice that everything else they refer to is their own writing? (Built of Living Stones and SttL are both wanting, in substance and in binding force.)

    I for one won't ride this merry-go-round, even if it uses a real Wurlitzer band organ.
    Thanked by 4Daniel Bennett Page CHGiffen Chris_McAvoy Wendi
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    They seem convinced, as many folk of their stripe, that if they simply mention Benedict, we'll all perk up, behave as if we're being taken seriously and declare it a victory.


    Don't blame the heretics and crazy people, though.

    I'm pretty sure that if you mention something the Pope said, then take it out of context in order to justify your own agenda, that it's the Pope's fault.

    (I learned that from Facebook and Michael Voris, the two most reliable sources for social and theological commentary.)
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Also, I'd like to amend my earlier statement of:
    >>Gregorian Chant, polyphony and organ
    That's three genres

    to:

    >>Gregorian chant
    That's at least three genres.
    Thanked by 2Ioannes Andreades IanW
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    To rely only on the music of a single genre or style for the celebration of the Liturgy is to diminish the breadth and depth of our liturgical heritage and to risk the exclusion of the legitimate contributions of particular cultures and composers.


    This statement has all the qualities of a document of the Second Vatican Council. Rocket-launchers: holster your weapons long enough to hear me out.

    It is quite possible to read the statement in an entirely Catholic sense, since the Church has been a tremendous patron of the arts for centuries. Indeed, it can be intelligently said that Palestrina took secular melodies and "baptised" them for use in the liturgy. Think of great art of all kinds -- the comment about relying on a single genre is self-evidently true.

    It is equally possible to read this statement as a slap in the face to multiple hundreds of years of insular Catholic thinking, and the opening of the windows to multicultural/ecumenical/modern stuff. Had the text named a type of music to bless, or a type of music on which to place an anathema, the statement would have sufficient context to be properly understood.

    Here's a non-inflammatory example, from my own recent life.

    I made the decision to try to help my 17 year old; this decision involved the downloading of some "free" software. I dutifully downloaded it, but when the user agreement came up, it said "If this software was electronically accessed, press 'decline'". Since I had electronically accessed it, I dutifully pressed "decline", and the program refused to operate. It took some effort on the part of my eldest son and my dear sweet wife to persuade me that in the proper context, this meant that if I was unable to abide by the conditions in the agreement, I could either return the software to the store where I bought it or -- if it had been electronically accessed -- press decline.


    Amen, dico vobis: it is quite appropriate for Shakespeare, or Wilde or Holy Writ to have multivalent, non-contradictory meanings. It is maddeningly unhelpful for teaching documents and legislation to have multivalent, contradictory meanings.

    Imagine if the newly-elected President of the United States took the oath of office and meant by "faithfully execute", "bring to a speedy end"! We execute criminals, and we execute security protocols, but these meanings aren't used in the same context, thus making it clear which we mean. If the President intended to bring the law to naught, he could do so, not by taking the oath and meaning what (I presume) it clearly means, but by substituting another meaning.

    Inflammatory example warning: when the SSPX (of which, as a layman I am not a member, and which, as a Catholic in communion with the Holy See I do not frequent) is required to assent to the teachings of the living magisterium of Vatican 2, the very nature of the documents makes it difficult to know what the society needs to accept which it doesn't already accept. If there were a list of teachings, with clear, scholastically-defined terms, the Society could choose to accept or decline. Absent clear definitions, assenting to the 'teachings of Vatican 2' can be made to mean nearly anything. Do the teachings of Vatican 2 involve SLJ, Sacro-Pop, multiculturalism, ecumenism, the ordination of women, the renovation of church buildings to remove altar rails and such things, or can one, legitimately assert that chant should have pride of place means that it should be used frequently?

    Papa Francisco seems to have the same problem: read in context, it is clear that he doesn't change, or intend to change, what the Church has always taught. Sound-bites make bad teaching, but the press can have a field day with these.

    Cheers,

    Chris
    Thanked by 5melofluent Jenny CHGiffen irishtenor Eric D. Williams
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I didn't enter Chris' post with intent to either praise or bury him, but I have to agree with what I believe is his central premise- the inevitable adjudication that the conciliar liturgical documents' ambivalence was purposed, and moreso, the likewise inevitable result of centuries of musical accretions which, in context, seemed necessary at their times. How could the first world Italianate (opera) composers be restrained from their excesses after the Germans had been singing chorale hymns for generations, villancicos and actual liturgical songs were the hybrid results of inculturation with indigenous peoples in the Americas? How do you arbitrate whether Monteverdi's Vespers of St. John Baptist hearkens back to Palestrina or looks forward to Vienna?
    But we cannot erase any of this and pretend all that and the post-conciliar genres are all trash AND not compliant with the mind of the Church as stated by even the prevailing documents, and then toss 'em. Faber and Lambilotte still live on. We can't predict whose names shall be found in hymnals (or such) in two centuries. Hence, my perpetual advice to tend to our own vineyards in humility.
    And also as Chris advances, our problems aren't liturgi-centric. they are ecclesial issues. We are just "pastoral musicians" for the most part. We must be both trusted and enterprising stewards of that trust and not lord over the globe of catholicism and her interests from our magpie perches and the merry go rounds.
    Thanked by 7Adam Wood CHGiffen ronkrisman Andrew_Malton Andrew Motyka kevinf Eric D. Williams
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Melofluent,

    Thank you for neither praising nor burying me.

    Here's what I suggest about all new music which is proposed for Liturgical use, be that liturgy the Mass, the Breviary, for public processions or anything similar: avoid using the standards of the day to evaluate music. Standards of the day give rise to "Top 40" lists, but they don't tell us what has enduring value, edifying capacity or spiritual strength.

    I don't like Mozart's opus, generally speaking, but that doesn't make it bad music. My judgment about its good or lack of it needs to be tempered by the judgment of generations who have gone before - what Chesterton called the democracy of the dead. Even if I accept that Mozart's music is, objectively speaking, good, there are many non-Mozart pieces in the "objectively good" category, and so I am not required to listen to Mozart or to use his opus in a liturgical or private setting.

    The opus of Madonna, or Cyndi Lauper, or Sting or Adam Ant or..... Marty Haugen for that matter..... can't be judged on whether it is popular today, if the question is "is it suitable for the public worship of God?" Did the Archbishop of Paris use this music at Mass in 1571? Of course not, because none of it existed then -- but the same thing could be said of the opus of Maurice Durufle and Sir Edward Elgar and .... anyone who wrote anything exclusively since 1571. This is why Pope Pius X's Tra le sollecitudini is so helpful: it sets a standard by which to measure the fitness of music for the public worship of God. This is also why the USCCB document is so maddeningly unclear. Instead of actually setting standards, it seems to use platitudes, and descriptive ones, instead of prescriptive ones. Must one attempt to implement it? Yes. Must one expect others to have read the document and come to the conclusion one's reading is utterly mistaken? Sure: we wouldn't be parish musicians if everyone weren't permitted his own opinion about our field. On the other hand, should one be able to support one's opinion with teaching documents? Absolutely. Is such a recourse to informed, teaching documents going to be persuasive? I wouldn't think so, because we live in a culture for which the voice of authority is unconvincing --- but that doesn't make the teaching wrong.

    Try arguing with an adamantly self-convinced teen.

    Cheers,

    Chris
    Thanked by 1Eric D. Williams
  • Chris_McAvoyChris_McAvoy
    Posts: 389
    May God be with the true stewards of tradition whether they are "schismatic" or "not schismatic".

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28dxa2IGRCM
    In certain aspects, the Most Rev. Nicholas, metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Detroit is a better example of how for instance a Roman Catholic bishop should act regarding liturgy. In this video he participates in singing part of the Vespers himself in the most beautiful manner. Everything is as it should be. I think I will be an old man before such things occur again in the Roman Catholic Church.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQTrUO4XDbs You can see Metropolitan Nicholas participated in an "Ecumenical" Vespers with Excellency Archbishop Allen Vigneron (Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit), and while it is not the worst, the triviality of the novus ordo ideaology continues to shine through in it. It does not move one in the way it ought to, in the way the greek rite version in the greek orthodox cathedral does. This is not because of historical/cultural difference, but because a different idea of what the faith even is has come to be a barrier between them. The two different vespers betray two opposing ideas that are incompatible with being reconciled to each other.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    We could learn a lot from our Eastern brothers and sisters.
    Thanked by 2ryand Kathy
  • Chris_McAvoyChris_McAvoy
    Posts: 389
    We could also learn a lot from Anglican use Catholics, from SSPX communities, FSSP communities and from fledgling struggling "Western rite" Orthodox "brothers and sisters". But actions speak louder than words....

    " The Basic Argument

    The answer to the aforementioned question, developed over 356 pages, is found in an epigraph at the beginning of the second chapter. He quotes the 19th century Russian ascetic Theophan the Recluse: "You should descend to your heart from your head...

    The life is in the heart, so you should live there. Do not think that this applies only to the perfect. No, it applies to everyone who begins to seek out the Lord."

    The Roman rite of the Catholic Church began to live more and more in its head rather than in its heart, which is its holy liturgy. (Dr. Geoffrey) Hull traces two closely intertwined trends that emerged as characteristics of the Roman Church:

    1. An emphasis on rationality and logic that descends from the Roman legal tradition and which survived in the Latin Church's theological language

    2. A tendency to imitate the secular forces of the time with regards to internal government and relations with those outside of itself (in this case, non-Latin Christians)    ".

    What patience life takes. :-)



  • Musicteacher56
    Posts: 621
    It would seem that the USCCB writes in very "shadowy" language to appear as those it is understanding of all good sacred music, but still gives the modernists carte blanche to continue writing music unworthy of the liturgy. The fact that many church pastors and musicians have decided to "reform the reform" makes the USCCB antsy, leading them to write ambiguous and seemingly "people friendly" documents.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Interesting point, MT56, that you raise. The ecclesial authority of the USCCB, if it ever had any gravitas, is both dissipated and conflated at once. As a conference, no one, not even themselves, appear to take any serious interest in alleviating real problems, but each bishop eventually goes home and conducts business pretty much as their own notion of status quo moves them. As much as he is an incredible personality, T. Cdl. Dolan's apology tours on networks and Colbert for HHF, do NOT represent a unified field of opinion as to what constitutes "church," much less liturgical stewardship.
    So, nothing substantially nor organically has changed regarding "informed and inspired" composition among "the modernists." You can't even really label the local musician whose compositions emulate Bacharach, Sondheim, John Denver or Dave Matthews in their opus "modernists" in the same breath with Richard Rice, James McMillen, Frank LaRocca or Kevin Allen. the former "writers" don't know they're "modernists" in the first place, they don't comprehend any prescriptions against their free expression to praise God through their heartfelt ditties upon a captive congregation, and they sure as heck will fork out big money to see Matt Maher or Chris Rice when their roadshows blow through town.
    Mr. McAvoy's ardent hope and doubt I share as well. But I can't afford to roll over into stasis. And that requires conscientiousness, diligence and, God help us, compromise.
    The one thing I know, and I'll see him presiding at our church this coming Sunday, is that unlike his brothers Cordileone, Olmstead or Sample et al, I wont expect a phone call from our bishop asking me what I think about all these worship concerns. So, again, nose to the stone....keep the faith in RotR despite whatever the conference thinks or ignores 'cause it's working, and don't tilt at any windmills outside your sphere of influence.
    Here's the problem in a nutshell: we have too damn many EXPERTS out touting what liturgy, ecclesiology and the Church herself ought to be. The Church simply is.
  • WendiWendi
    Posts: 638
    Here's the problem in a nutshell: we have too damn many EXPERTS out touting what liturgy, ecclesiology and the Church herself ought to be.


    Well you know what an "expert" is, right Dearest? An expert is just a drip under pressure. :) (sorry...couldn't resist the attempt at levity...it's been a day.)
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Chris wrote:

    It is equally possible to read this statement as a slap in the face to multiple hundreds of years of insular Catholic thinking, and the opening of the windows to multicultural/ecumenical/modern stuff. Had the text named a type of music to bless, or a type of music on which to place an anathema, the statement would have sufficient context to be properly understood.


    Exactly my beef. We bless nothing, we condemn nothing. What truly is the point? We are already lost in the sea of confusion. This just dumps barrels more sea into the sea... it just creates a larger expanse in which we can all get a little more lost.
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,295
    Francis and Chris,

    I agree with you more than I can say. I agree fully 100%. I think it would be far better to have clear statements of what is and what is not desirable and approved for use during the Sacred Liturgy.

    That said, I believe our own Kathy Pluth has said this before, we might be better served to wait a while longer for a "white list," as those who would write this list, were it written today, are not wholly on board with the RotR/NLM.

    I hope that I will see a real, positive development in this area during my lifetime. Gosh, it is hard to wait.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    IT,
    There will never be an American "white list." Whatever confidence the now forgotten ad hoc luminaries called the Snowbirds might have engendered is a footnote, and was fundamentally flawed in concept in any case. It doesn't bother me all that much, but to forecast that some future biological/genetic demographic will reconcile very complex dynamic issues, ie. the use of Latin in either form, the reconciliation or reconditioning of the documents, the dichotomies that entrench any consensus of FACP, not to mention the segregation of hymnody of merit, should the use of propers be somehow mandated (not to mention the tension between the OF and EF as it is practiced in reality versus theory), will likely prove a mirage versus the whims of the lay populace.

    I think it of great merit that we Americans hold fast to such ideals and hope. But an American cliche, thanks to Pogo, remains the comic maxim "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,295
    Too true, meloCharles, too true.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    You may see my idea of a white list very soon. (Teaser)

  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    How about a white hymnal?

    image
    Thanked by 1Ioannes Andreades
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    I am white. Does that qualify for the list?
    Thanked by 3ryand Ben Kathy
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Now Charles, fess up, you're pink (I checked the old records of the House Committee of Un-American Activities via the FOI Act.) And NSA has recorded every time you've mentioned that you're "Eastern Rite." But the dead giveaway was a photo of you bare-chested at the console with Putin next to you belting out, I presume, La Internationale.
    Thanked by 4CharlesW expeditus1 ghmus7 Kathy
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    It takes one subversive to know another subversive. LOL.

    I am actually a Republican who is developing strong Libertarian tendencies as I age. I am ready to throw all the bums out of office. ;-)
    Thanked by 1Eric D. Williams
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,388
    The statement in question is available at the USCCB website:
    http://www.usccb.org/about/divine-worship/stewards-of-the-tradition-table-of-contents.cfm.

    On the first page of the document we read:
    The document Stewards of the Tradition—Fifty Years after Sacrosanctum Concilium was developed by the Committee on Divine Worship of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The Administrative Committee of the USCCB at its September 2013 meeting authorized the issuance of the document as a formal statement of the Committee on Divine Worship. It was subsequently authorized for publication by the undersigned (Rev. Msgr. Ronny E. Jenkins).

    This is a commemorative statement of the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship, not the entire USCCB. Its publication was authorized by the USCCB Administrative Committee, a committee composed of conference officers, committee chairmen, and representatives from each of the episcopal regions of the conference.

    It is a teaching document, but not a legislative one. (Particular law for the dioceses of the USA must be approved by the entire USCCB and receive the recognitio of the Apostolic See.)

    The document is similar to the statement of the NCCB Committee on the Liturgy issued thirty years ago, The Church at Prayer: A Holy Temple of the Lord. (How many folks remember that document?)

    My read of the present document: it is an encouragement to all liturgical ministers to continue their efforts in implementing the liturgical reforms called for by Vatican II. Certain principles of that reform are recalled. Nothing more, nothing less.

    I think the Committee on Divine Worship intentionally avoided all neuralgic issues in their statement. I think that is true even of the one paragraph devoted to liturgical music. The sentence that some on this thread find distressing ("To rely only on the music of a single genre or style for the celebration of the Liturgy is to diminish the breadth and depth of our liturgical heritage and to risk the exclusion of the legitimate contributions of particular cultures and composers.") applies to all music ministers, even those who presently rely only on contemporary piano- and guitar-based repertoire.
    Thanked by 3Spriggo ghmus7 Eric D. Williams
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Fr. Krisman,

    Of course it applies to "even those who presently rely only on contemporary piano", but how many of such people, if they hold this opinion by ignorance or by volition, will care what the text says?

    God bless,

    Chris
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Jenny
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,388
    @cgz: Chris, you pose a very important question. Stewards of the Tradition states: "We wish to underscore the importance of the words set to music for the Liturgy, and that they must accurately reflect the theology of the Liturgy or be drawn from the liturgical texts themselves." I suspect that more than a few music ministers still give little or no consideration at all to texts. Hopefully, the BCDW statement will help to change that practice.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Andrew Motyka
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    >>I suspect that more than a few music ministers still give little or no consideration at all to texts.
    While probably accurate, this is the most totally insane thing I can imagine.

    >>Hopefully, the BCDW statement will help to change that practice.
    Seems unlikely.

    "Yeah- I used to never even read the texts of the songs I programmed, even though they were right there in front of me- but then I read the text of this statement from the USCCB that I had to go hunt down on my own even though there is no way I could have known of its existence... and that changed EVERYTHING!"
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I suspect that more than a few music ministers still give little or no consideration at all to texts.

    But few are those if any who haunt these pages, Father.
    Now, pray tell, why do you think the situation you posit is S.O.P.?
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    and that they must accurately reflect the theology of the Liturgy or be drawn from the liturgical texts themselves


    Fr. Krisman,

    As long as the Liturgy can involve clown masses, and the Religious Education conference in Los Angeles can be allowed to occur without censure, "accurately reflect the theology of the Liturgy" means that the errors may continue apace. People who think that the Mass is something other than a community celebrating itself are just anti-Vatican 2, and need to follow the example of our humble bishop of Rome, Francis.

    And so the madness continues because the bishops can't seem to speak with clarity.

    I'm not trying to be a bishop basher. I'm merely voicing the opinion that unless and until better things are actively promoted and worse are actively persecuted, status quo ante and the foreseeable future are identical.
  • WendiWendi
    Posts: 638
    persecuted? seriously? and who arbitrates what constitutes worse?
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Wendi,

    Perhaps I wasn't clear.

    Let me try again.

    I'm merely voicing this opinion: status quo ante and the foreseeable future are identical -- unless and until both
    better things are actively promoted
    and
    worse things are actively suppressed.

    There. I've changed persecuted to suppressed.

    I'm sorry if I sounded as if I were trying to re-institute the Spanish Inquisition. I simply want the soggy-noodle-tolerance regimen to end.


    What constitutes worse? Holy Mother Church has already answered this question, but obfuscators do not wish others to know, and the ignorant (which is not meant perjoratively) self-evidently don't know any different.

    Cheers,

    Chris
  • WendiWendi
    Posts: 638
    No Chris, I think you were being perfectly clear. Your explanation of your original statement confirms that for me.

    It is my belief that words mean things, and expressing yourself in such a way does not help advance the restoration of truly sacred music in the Mass. Of course you are free to disagree.
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I'm merely voicing this opinion: status quo ante and the foreseeable future are identical -- unless and until both
    better things are actively promoted
    and
    worse things are actively suppressed.

    ChrisGZ, you've just described the semantical merry-go-round I think we need to avoid jumping on, and that which is frustrating Wendi.
    What sorts of things, better or worse, do organizations like CMAA/Adoremus/CCW et al engage in? What about their websites? Have you noticed any measurable effects of their promotions in the last decade or so?
    Regarding solutions to a presumed stasis, let me illustrate with something that came to my attention just this morning. I received an email forward from the only cantor/song leader in our mega parish, he being an exemplar of the "Spirit of Vatican II" kind of guy. In it he forwards an account of another parishioner who encountered a "praise team" setup in a parish in Marietta, GA, replete with drums and projection screens and what he termed "praise music," and then asked my cantor could that not be done at one of our parishes (the newest one.)
    Well, I replied that basically all of those elements are already in place at this new, ostensibly temporary "church" (screens and all) and that the predominant music style was in the category of what we (non-perjoratively) dub "sacro pop." So, unless the writer meant a wholesale switch to Hillsongs style, which he didn't make clear nor did my cantor, I couldn't find the beef.
    In the meanwhile, over the three years of the new church's coming on line, I've also implemented the singing of the proper entrance and communion antiphons, given workshops on how to avoid the simple inclination to use the shill magazines that tout publisher product exclusively, to improve and widen the skill sets of all singers and musicians over there (as I don't oversee music but at the mother parish for the most part) and monitor through communication with the celebrants how things are proceeding.

    Beyond all that, an onerous shift from the bishop mandating wholesale changes one way or the other is not expected (as I've never seen one that's been successful in 43 years.)
    Keep the politics local, and do what you can whenever you can. And, most importantly, stay at one church as long as you possibly can so that the seeds you plant can become trees that would be missed noticeably should a new bishop or pastor choose to whack it down on a whim.
    Thanked by 4ronkrisman Wendi kevinf Eric D. Williams
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,388
    Wise advice, Charles. Improving the musical scene will only come gradually, and using a bludgeon on folks will never be successful.
    Thanked by 2melofluent CHGiffen
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I just came across this comic: Worship War

    Perhaps relevant, perhaps not.
    Thanked by 1melofluent
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    I just came across this comic: Worship War

    Reminds me of this, from a friend of mine.
    image
Add a Comment