Mixed voice choirs, and the way discussion should be...
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 857
    I wondered about this question, just in general, but also because we may be getting a new DM who is female. I personally can't wait, but wondered about how we handle the chant, as it is just two older guys (including me) doing it on our own. if we don't get a new DM, the two of us are about three weeks away from being really, really good on our own. It's been a struggle--I struggle with nerves, and the other guy wants to follow my lead because I know more and my pitch is better. I would love to see it through to where the two of us really do well. Today was a real success--my pitch was dead on, but my tone still a little constricted from nerves, and his tone was excellent and he followed me perfectly. I still really want a trained conductor. She'd be our third voice.

    So, I expected to get the usual scalping just for asking, but I found these discussions (two linked from the first), about mixed choirs in the EF, let alone the OF. Lo and behold, even with some disagreement over some intemperate words from Pope St. Pius X, which even he did not abide by, the discussions don't get nasty. Why can't that be true now?

    In any case, if you ever wondered about mixed voice choirs in Latin Masses, here is your very well-informed answer:

    http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/5523/mixed-gregorian-chant-choirs-permitted-in-ef/p1
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    "Amindthatsuits",

    When a pope teaches, his words can be many things: authoritative, truthful, solicitous.....all at the same time. What they can't be is intemperate. Anyone who disagrees with the Pope may have an opinion which is... among other things, wrong, when what is being taught is a matter of faith and morals.

    Cheers,

    Chris
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    A distinction, Chris:

    amindthatsuits is talking about a liturgical directive, not a teaching on faith or morals.

    The Pope and the bishops have authority to teach, sanctify, and govern the Church, and it is valuable to recognize the difference between these different capacities.

    God protects the Pope and the college of bishops from imposing false doctrine on the Church, and, if I understand things aright, He protects the Pope from imposing an invalid sacramental rite on the Church; but short of that, He does not promise to prevent mistaken acts of governance, including in the liturgical sphere. So it's theoretically possible that some directives might be ill-designed or otherwise not beneficial.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Chonak,

    Would that include the promulgation of a form of the rite which was a marked departure from what had come before?

    I recognize the difference between faith/morals and other kinds of teaching. My usual example is this: if His Holiness decrees that the Cubs win the World Series, one is in no wise required to hold this teaching as infallible. He might even use the correct form..... something about "to be held definitively" by the faithful, but that wouldn't change the fact that such a teaching isn't subject to the charism of infallibility.

    Whether one likes the formulation or not, when the commander gives an INSTRUCTION, foot soldiers should faithfully execute this command.

    This is what bothers me so much about His Holiness washing the feet of women on Holy Thursday. (Please: hold your fire and hear me out). When the rubrics bind us, and he feels not bound by the rubrics which his (sainted) predecessor promulgated, he teaches us disrespect for the law. Once upon a time, priests were taught that they violated the rubrics on pain of mortal sin. Now -- His Holiness models utter disregard for same.

    His Holiness, Pope Saint Pius X didn't speak intemperately on this matter, whether moderns like his speech or not.
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 857
    I should not even respond, but if one knows the history of the popes, there have been many intemperate moments. A non-binding statement that is immediately contravened by indults offered by the very same pope would count, as was the one under discussion. A too harsh judgment in matters of discipline that the Pope then has to rethink counts as intemperate. We're not even getting into John XII.

    Kenneth
  • rogue63
    Posts: 410
    .
  • kenstb
    Posts: 369
    The authority of the Roman Pontiff did not end with the death of St. Pius X. The current pope is able to lead as he chooses.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    "Amindthatsuits",

    If a pope reconsiders a disciplinary matter, this is not an indication that he spoke intemperately. Oaths against modernism -- in my opinion -- should be immediately reinstated, and certain music should not be sung at Mass, full-stop. Do I, in speaking thus, speak intemperately? By no means, even though I am not the pope.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    "intemperately", "ill-advisedly", etc.: these are expressions of opinion, and there's no need to expect that everyone will agree.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Chonak,

    Fair enough. I felt the need to defend His Holiness from the charge of speaking intemperately, but I'll bow to your wisdom on this one.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
Add a Comment