The link didn't work but I looked it up. You did know that the Kindle edition is $75.00 and the hardcover is $95.00?

Thanks. I am going to do a library search. As a retired librarian, I will find it if anyone has it.

I have the book, it's a great read. Equivocating, but worthwhile.
Allow me to share the last comment from Paul Inwood's esoteric post proposing that the Entrance/Gathering/Whatever is starting Rites be revised due to helter-skelter practice PRIOR to the Introit.

It is now quite clear to me that the purpose of this thread has been completely misunderstood. It’s not about stopping people praying in church. It’s about the possible future structure and implementation of the gathering rites. Anthony, if you are reading this, please close comments.

This tells a PTB veteran all they need to know. Paul's extrapolated thesis was merely conjecture masked in a loquacious dialectic I would have been proud to have authored, were I bat.... nevermind. But when I called him out repeatedly, with support refutations of his premises by the likes of none other than Rita, he didn't say a mumblin' word.
So, when I provided the last extremely factual anecdote from Thanksgiving Day, he demurred with the above disclaimer. That amounts to a "Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I'm gonna eat some worms" bailout. AKA, I'm taking my marbles home. AKA, this playing field is not, nor has been and likely won't be a level playing field. Unless you're Xavier Rindfleisch.
Why does everyone still wonder why AWR still flogs the MR3/Lit.Authenticam horse after four years?

IIRC from my reading of Fr. Ruff's book, he has great things to say about chant and seems to approve of it in the liturgy, but then demurs in the last chapter by saying it will never go over in the typical modern parish.

(BTW, there is a preview of the book at GoogleBooks.)

Does he often write about chant or music on the blog?

Ruff is one of the world's leading experts on Gregorian Chant. He's a brilliant musician and very well respected scholar.

Any disagreement any one of us might have with him about the nature of liturgy, or the place of chant in the liturgy, should be weighed against that fact, and the knowledge that he almost certainly knows more about the subject than most of us do.

that is entirely your own opinion

and here is mine:

point being, no person's intellectual status has any bearing on the place of chant in the liturgy. it is fact that it is central and will remain so even if the entire liturgical academia would proclaim the contrary. (which, btw, they have largely done already!) you must remember... the "thinking" on post VII liturgical music and those who promote it is mostly rooted in foolish speculation and agenda driven arguments. (that are a mere 50 years contrived)

go back and read the (unbiased) knowledge amassed in The Papal Legislation On Sacred Music. No single person could stand credible in the face of centuries of testimony contrary to its conclusion. no body of academicians could either. ...and VII WAS the body that tried.

which opinions of AR would it be foolish to dismiss? your generalizations for me are invalidating the weight of your statements.
Be very specific please.

truth and sound judgement stands on its own. a person's status or knowledge may or may not lend credibility to the facts (or supposed body of knowledge)

I'm not sure what you are arguing about, or what hole you think I am digging. I also don't see how it is that I have pit brother against brother. You are the one being needlessly inflammatory.

Fr. Ruff is a very well-respected scholar of Gregorian chant. That isn't really a controversial statement. It's a well-established fact. If you don't believe me, that is your problem.

From that fact I made a conclusion: His opinions concerning chant should not be dismissed out of hand.

This is based on a simple principle: If someone is extremely knowledgeable about a particular subject, his or her opinions on that subject should not be dismissed out of hand.

I don't think that leap of logic requires much justification. If it isn't self-evident to you, I'm not sure how I can explain it in more obvious terms.

It's just a blog, folks. No one is required to read it. Like most blogs, it reflects a certain perspective. I think the moderation of comments has on occasion been heavy handed (and have noted such to the editor), but it's not my blog and so it's not my call. If it bothered me all that much, I suppose I could start my own blog, but I'm far too lazy for that. And the moderation of comments is certainly no more heavy handed than what one finds on the prominent blog of a certain sacerdos rusticus, whose com boxes function as an echo chamber for magnifying his own voice. There's actually quite a bit of disagreement among commenters on PTB and there are a number of more conservative folks who seem to have figured out how to color inside the lines and still make their points.

I've been known to be caught saying nice things about an article on NLM and posting positive remarks about my experience at an EF Mass and have received nary a complaint from the editor.

But at the end of the day, the fact is that if you don't like the blog, then don't read it. If you can't make your point without having your comment deleted, make your point elsewhere (like this forum).

And Anthony Ruff knows a s--tload about chant.

I should note that Deacon Fritz is a major reason I participate in the PT blog.

PTB certainly has its ideological bent. It also has a very impressive and knowledgeable roster of contributors and commentators. It also has a few annoying lurkers (on both ends of the spectrum) who beat the same dead horses, regardless of what the post topic is.

I believe there is real value in entering into the conversation there, and doing it in a constructive way that is not deleted, inflammatory, or off-topic. If you are intellectually well-formed and confident in the truth of your position, there is no reason to fear any particular forum of discussion. And you may learn (which is part of intellectual formation) that there are legitimate counter-arguments to ideas you have taken for granted.

In my experience there, AWR is not that central a part of the discussion anyway. He typically jumps in to correct posts that he sees as factually incorrect or logically flawed. And often he is right! Sometimes I disagree with him - even in a series of posts - but I have never found him to be disrespectful.

..."knows a s--tload about chant."...

An interesting term to include in any encomium.

I'll have to use that the next time I make reference to Dom Gajard!

Gaudete in Domino Semper!

His writings on the blog are not usually about liturgical music.

They are usually about church governance, in some way.

His recent posts.

I would categorize Fr. Anthony as a pragmatist as regards sacred/liturgical music.

I would suggest that, liturgically, Fr Anthony is a tempered idealist - at times, maybe somewhat over tempered. He understands that the monastic setting is something of a greenhouse compared to parochial pastures, but living under vows of stability can mean Benedictine monks learn to be careful to avoiding taxing each other too much with their individual preferences or hijacking norms in the service of them, and that undergirds what would otherwise be mere pragmatism. It's more layered. By the same token, he's taxed by people who've not learned to temper their own idealism in a similar way. Just my read. Others will differ.

Fr Anthony is a tempered idealist

I dunno if there's such an animal, what what? An idealist, by definition, is bound from compromise one would think.

noun
1. a person who cherishes or pursues high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc.
Synonyms: optimist, perfectionist, reformer, visionary, utopianist.
2. a visionary or impractical person.
Synonyms: romantic, romanticist, dreamer, stargazer.

Of course, words cannot adequately describe in absolutes.
However, to go along with the other explicative used earlier for AWR's knowledge base, when folks decry me as a farging icehole or jerk, that about sums it up.

I'm not so sure about that. There is truly a lot wrong with the church, especially when leading bishops, supported by the Holy Father, speak outright falsehoods, and even the holy father himself walks the line between lack of clarity and outright falsehood. … That seems like something to be angry about to me.

I agree with you. What I'm saying is that we should be careful not to use "righteous anger" to legitimize vitriol or hatred. That delegitimizes real righteous anger, such as what should be directed to the falsehoods you mention, rather than vitriol.

If you found this surprising, you should check your cognitive biases. … Someone who leans trad, and is surprised by vitriol in the comments section of a traddie/conservative blog probably has has a self-created blind-spot when it comes to how people they sort-of agree with behave.

This is working off a number of assumptions. I never expressed surprise, only disappointment. I'm disappointed in 1P5 precisely because it confirms the stereotype which I find incredibly unfortunate. I'm also not exactly some who "leans trad". I want beautiful, reverent liturgies immersed in gregorian chant, but I have a distaste for polyphony taking the place of, rather than accompanying chant (with the possible exception of the Ordinariate, as it fits with their Patrimony). And I'd prefer an almost entirely Latin OF to an EF. Ratzinger is my favorite Theologian, but I loved Laudato Si'.

In other words, I'm not some traddie seeing the world through rose—not pink—tinted glasses. If I was, why would I disagree with or be troubled by the vitriol on a Trad website? I'm sympathetic to what people call traditionalism, and dislike what people call liberalism, but I rather think the whole thing is a stupid, false dichotomy. If you're trying to remake the Church in your own image, then you're a traddie or a liberal who happens to have certain preferences one way or the other. If you're trying in good will to follow the Church's wisdom an teaching in an authentic way that reflects the whole of Church, then you're Catholic, whether you're at an EF High Mass parish, an all Latin OF parish, or the Parish where you have to sneak in a communion antiphon amongst the four hymn sandwich because that's the situation you're in, or any other number of cases.

It's been part of Anglican Patrimony from the beginning. It came into Roman liturgy 1500 years in. Either way, it's still inferior to chant :P Don't get me wrong, I love polyphony, and I think it definitely has its place in the Liturgy. But if we're honest, the Church constantly says that Gregorian Chant has pride of place. That means over polyphony as well, even if polyphony is the next best thing. The operative word is next.

This isn't a popular or "traditional" opinion (meaning among people labelled traditionalists by themselves or others), but I do think that's what the Church has taught in numerous places, most especially in Tre La Solicitudini.

I can't wait to jump into this discussion before it dissolves (although it seems to have already suffered disintegration at numerous points), and then I will RILE you all up again. Just don't have time at the moment. Stay tuned!!!!

I was being over the top, but I still think the statement stands. Gregorian chant is the supreme musical expression of the Roman Rite. It is the Roman Rite. Anything else is not inherent to the Roman Liturgy and is thus inferior. That being said, polyphony is at its best only a step behind GC, whereas good hymns are a block away, "praise and worship" in the next state, and the 60's-90's awful hymns on Alpha Centauri.

Oh, and you all can call me Skyler, if you'd like. I know Vilyanor's a mouthful. Or finger full. Or something. It's my elvish name. And I'd just tried to say I'm not some crazy traddie…

I wasn't disappointed, Francis! I agree with you mostly. Yes, polyphony has it's roots in the ancient chant of the Church, but GC is the ancient chant of the Church. I'm in no way despising or degrading polyphony. I truly don't think there's anything so beautiful as human voices singing in harmony. That being said, it is always GC that is singled out by Church documents. I've always read polyphony as being a close second. If you can find the Church documents that say otherwise, please do show them, in all sincerity I'd love to see any documents on the subject.

Tra Le Sollecitudini comes close:

3. These qualities are to be found, in the highest degree, in Gregorian Chant, which is, consequently the Chant proper to the Roman Church, the only chant she has inherited from the ancient fathers, which she has jealously guarded for centuries in her liturgical codices, which she directly proposes to the faithful as her own, which she prescribes exclusively for some parts of the liturgy, and which the most recent studies have so happily restored to their integrity and purity.

On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down thefollowing rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.

The ancient traditional Gregorian Chant must, therefore, in a large measure be restored to the functions of public worship, and the fact must be accepted by all that an ecclesiastical function loses none of its solemnity when accompanied by this music alone.

Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times.

4. The above-mentioned qualities are also possessed in an excellent degree by Classic Polyphony, especially of the Roman School, which reached its greatest perfection in the sixteenth century, owing to the works of Pierluigi da Palestrina, and continued subsequently to produce compositions of excellent quality from a liturgical and musical standpoint. Classic Polyphony agrees admirably with Gregorian Chant, the supreme model of all sacred music, and hence it has been found worthy of a place side by side with Gregorian Chant, in the more solemn functions of the Church, such as those of the Pontifical Chapel. This, too, must therefore be restored largely in ecclesiastical functions, especially in the more important basilicas, in cathedrals, and in the churches and chapels of seminaries and other ecclesiastical institutions in which the necessary means are usually not lacking.

But even here, GC is the Supreme Model on which polyphony is based. The language towards GC is so strong, that even if we consider the side by side, GC must be at the very least the first among equals. That might not even be strong enough.

My question is, if the Church repeatedly professes GC to have "pride of place" (all things considered) and to be the "supreme model", shouldn't our focus be on giving GC that place, even before its closest follower, polyphony? Should we really use a polyphonic ordinary, beautiful as it may be, when there are 18+ beautiful Gregorian ordinaries? I think the documents are clear that GC comes first, and so polyphony should complement it, not replace it. And what's more, is it simply personal preference for polyphony that urges us to replace GC with polyphony? Isn't the Liturgy meant to be bigger than our personal preferences? I'm not accusing anyone here of dong so. These are difficult, controversial questions, but I think it's something that should be pondered. Given how strongly the Church speaks of Gregorian chant, should we not promote it with the same strength, even if our personal preference would be for a polyphonic rendition?

I also want to think you all for having this discussion with me; this has been on my mind for a long time. Feel free to tear my arguments apart. I may be completely wrong. And again, I love polyphony. Many of my most profound Litrugical experiences have been based upon it, but I wonder whether we should choose it before Chant.

Vilyanor

I totally agree with you. The chant should by far outweigh the use of polyphony for the Ordinary. It should be the norm. After all my reading and poring over the documents and seeking out a fit solution for how to approach the liturgical year, it is my understanding that the peoples part IS the ordinary and the choir's part IS the proper. Of course, that is a generalization, but a good one in my mind.

However, on High Feast Days, I do think a polyphonic ordinary is completely within the bounds of acceptable if not an encouraged practice, granted that it be done well. Therefore, polyphony will probably be found in the larger parishes and cathedrals, and less in the smaller parishes.

I think most of us will use a more "ornate" Ordinary for special occasions. The congregation does seem to expect that.

If the Church in her wisdom wants to revise its legislation, the Holy Spirit will likely make that obvious to our prelates.

I hope the Holy Spirit has a large 2X4. That's what it would take to get their attention. A good whack up the side of the biretta would do it. LOL.

Vilyanor - "...I truly don't think there's anything so beautiful as human voices singing in harmony. That being said, it is always GC that is singled out by Church documents. "

While I love chant and polyphony, some of us have to produce liturgical music on a deadline with the talent and support available to us, and musical education is low on the list of priorities for many bishops, priests and boards of education. YMMV--I hope. I've had to work with several priests and so-called musicians who are openly hostile to both. In addition, I often walk into rehearsals with the understanding that what fundamentals of liturgy or music that the singers require must be planted and cultivated by me. Tra Le Sollecitudini aside, we need bishops who are not afraid to claim our catholic musical heritage and demand that the seminaries teach it. It takes a considerable investment of time and effort to cultivate an appreciation for chant and polyphony among clergy and laity who have little appetite for anything beyond what they hear on the radio. In this day and age, chant and polyphony are acquired tastes and require saintly patience and skill to implement at the parish level.

which generally involves compromise

This is simply not acceptable. We have accepted the compromise of the NO for 50 years. Dialogue is the method of liberals who want to 'feel included' in their wishy-washy-ness. Now we are dialoguing with those who wish to receive the Eucharist whilst living in mortal sin.
I call for a complete rejection of compromise, dialogue and sacrilege.

Good dialogue never hurt anyone

There exists very little 'good dialogue'.

Example of 'good' dialogue here:

I beseech thee, saith he, be not angry, Lord, if I speak yet once more: What if ten should be found there? And he said: I will not destroy it for the sake of ten. [33] And the Lord departed, after he had left speaking to Abraham: and Abraham returned to his place.

Result of 'good' dialogue here:

And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the earth.

The Point:

God will only dialogue with you for so long until:

I know thy works,
16
that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot. But because thou art lukewarm,
17
and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest: I am
rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing: and knowest not, that thou art wretched, and
18
miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. I counsel thee to buy of me gold fire tried, that thou
mayest be made rich; and mayest be clothed in white garments, and that the shame of thy nakedness
19
may not appear; and anoint thy eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. Such as I love, I rebuke
20
and chastise. Be zealous therefore, and do penance.