How many of us are observing these points from "Musicam sacram"?
  • Nisi
    Posts: 60
    From Musicam Sacram, 1967
    (full document here: https://adoremus.org/1967/03/05/musicam-sacram/)

    Parts of the Mass to be sung:

    29. The following belong to the first degree (in other words, these are to be accomplished first):

    (a) In the entrance rites: the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the prayer.

    (b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the acclamations at the Gospel.

    (c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: the prayer over the offerings; the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus; the final doxology of the Canon, the Lord’s Prayer with its introduction and embolism; the Pax Domini; the prayer after the Communion; the formulas of dismissal.

    30. The following belong to the second degree (In other words, these are to be accomplished after the sung parts of the first degree have been implemented.):

    (a) the Kyrie, Gloria and Agnus Dei;

    (b) the Creed;

    (c) the prayer of the faithful.

    31. The following belong to the third degree (In other words, these are to be accomplished after the sung parts of the second degree have been implemented.):

    (a) the songs at the Entrance and Communion processions;

    (b) the songs after the Lesson or Epistle;

    (c) the Alleluia before the Gospel;

    (d) the song at the Offertory;

    (e) the readings of Sacred Scripture, unless it seems more suitable to proclaim them without singing.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 260
    My parish isn't, nor is any parish in my diocese, nor the cathedral.

    Almost every parish does 31a, b, c and d; 30a; some of 29c.

    And add 31f for the Sending Forth Song (TM).

    Sorry for the Musicam sarcasm.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,093
    MS is an old document not applicable to the current approved rite. Not that everything in it is bad, it isn't. It is just out of date and superseded by more recent legislation. Now I know, if it says what some WANT to hear, they will drag it out of the dust bin and treat it as gospel. It isn't.
    Thanked by 3Liam CHGiffen tomjaw
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,739
    Which "more recent" legislation, Charles?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,093
    GIRM, etc. The authority was given to the conferences of bishops. It doesn't reside in Rome so much at a practical level. The bishops propose legislation and Rome approves it. And so it did. And I follow it.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,485
    Not applicable to either EF or OF.
    Written in terms of the 1962 rite as modified over the next three or four years. But not applicable (unless and in so far as PCED says it should be) because not written in 1962.
    For the OF superseded, or at least overridden by GIRM and GIRL. This shows most clearly in MS 31c that the Alleluia is of the third degree whereas for the Gospel Acclamation GIRL says "GIRL 23. ... The Alleluia or the verse before the Gospel must be sung, ..."
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Liam CHGiffen
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,485
    CharlesW - yes, authority has been given to the bishops, but they don't exercise it well, if at all. The Offices of the Conferences may produce things, but without much evidence of bishops exercising oversight. For England&Wales we have this, which diverges in places wildly from GIRM, and appears to assume hymns.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,093
    I never affirmed the competence of the bishops in things liturgical. Many suspect they don't have any. However, things have changed since MS. You may or may not like the changes but to pretend they don't exist is absurd.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,807
    Yes, there is no silver bullet in these matters.

    And I am rather sure at this point that one should be careful asking for one now. (That is, asking for universal legislation to triage and harmonize the divers official pieces of legislation that touch on sacred music for the past 60 years).

    Thanked by 2CharlesW CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,093
    Exactly. Be careful what you wish for. It can always get worse.
    Thanked by 2Liam CHGiffen
  • At Walsingham every last thing is sung at the eleven fifteen high mass and on solemnities. We have a nine-thirty 'sung masse' at which almost everything is sung. At our 'low masses' sursum corda and the preface will often be sung, as will be the collects, etc., depending on the celebrant. Even all three readings are sung at every solemnity's high mass.
  • Josh
    Posts: 90
    Assuming for the moment that this document is still relevant (as noted above, it isn't), and looking at the OF Mass...

    The main problem is that the items listed as belonging to the first degree, and thereby intended to be implemented first, are precisely those dependent on the priest himself being both able and willing to sing - and as experience teaches, this is not common!

    Rarely, quite rarely, does one hear the priest sing the opening Trinitarian invocation and salutation (In the name... and then The Lord be with you... or whatever)

    It is slightly less rare (though still uncommon) for the priest to sing the Collect, the Prayer over the Offerings, and/or the Prayer after Communion (and the final dismissal).

    It is still less rare, though far from common, alas, for the Preface with its dialogue to be sung.

    However, it is far more common - in my own not-very-musical parish, at every Sunday Mass - for the final doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer, the Lord’s Prayer with its introduction and embolism, and (though not in my own parish) the Pax Domini to be sung.

    I wonder why this is? Is it not simply because singing the ever-variable orations of the Mass, and likewise the many different texts of the Preface, is quite a lot trickier than singing the invariable doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer, the Our Father and so forth?
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,612
    The main problem is that the items listed as belonging to the first degree, and thereby intended to be implemented first, are precisely those dependent on the priest himself being both able and willing to sing - and as experience teaches, this is not common!


    Move to Phoenix. You'd be shocked how often I find the dialogues being sung randomly at DAILY MASSES that I happen in upon.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,739
    Since GIRM and Bishops' statements often contradict each other AND Roman documents, no reason that the term "free-for-all" shouldn't be applied.

    (Side note: there is a reason that in the EF the priest's singing assignments tend to be simple compared to those of the choir.....)
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 723
    An important distinction to keep in mind in reading §§29-30 of Musicam sacram is what is said in the previous paragraph (emphasis mine):

    "29. […] However, […] different degrees of participation are put forward here for reasons of pastoral usefulness, so that it may become easier to make the celebration of Mass more beautiful by singing, according to the capabilities of each congregation.

    These degrees are so arranged that the first may be used even by itself, but the second and third, wholly or partially, may never be used without the first. In this way the faithful will be continually led toward an ever greater participation in the singing."

    It's about the degrees of participation of the people in the singing during Mass, not about degrees of singing in itself. Moreover, they are not put forward as liturgical law, but as pastoral directions.

    So, taking the example of the Alleluia mentioned above by a_f_hawkins, the Alleluia is of the third degree because, probably, it is presumed to be sung by a choir or cantor (cf. Graduale Romanum) in a sung Mass and the participation of the people isn't required per se.

    Furthermore, for a document supposed to be superseded by recent liturgical legislation, it's referenced a lot. What I could find:
    1967: Eucharisticum Mysterium, §§22, 26
    1970: Liturgicae instaurationes, §3
    1973: Eucharistiae Participationem, §18
    1973: Directorium de Missis cum pueris, §§31, 32, 54
    1980: Dominicae Cenae, §10
    1981: Ordo Lectionum Missae, §19
    2001: Liturgiam Authenticam, §28
    2002: Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, §§32, 40, 41, 45, 79, 95, 103, 104, 115, 312
  • doneill
    Posts: 176
    It is too convenient to dismiss Musicam sacram as out-of-date and irrelevant. Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but as an ecclesial document, the only thing it would be superseded by would be the GIRM, which would mean that anything not contradicted by the GIRM (is there anything?) would still be valid. Yes, we have to adapt it to the current Mass, and we all know that strictly following those guidelines is unrealistic in many places (any sung entrance chant followed by a recited Greeting would be invalid, and musicians just can't control that aspect). Still, those tiered priorities are an excellent guide to what should be sung by the celebrant/congregation/choir. In a dream scenario in which I were responsible for organizing the music at a start-up parish with a singing priest and a good schola, I'd stick very close to these guidelines.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,485
    OTOH this which I emphasize is clearly no longer appropriate.
    These degrees are so arranged that the first may be used even by itself, but the second and third, wholly or partially, may never be used without the first.
  • Hawkins,

    No longer appropriate, or no longer observed as if it had any meaning?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,485
    Others can comment about the EF, but for the OF the rigid hierarchy of singing is no longer appropriate, instead the instructions speak of preference -
    GIRM#40. ... However, in the choosing of the parts actually to be sung, preference is to be given to those that are of greater importance and especially to those which are to be sung by the Priest or the Deacon or a reader, with the people replying, or by the Priest and people together. ...

    So the order of preference has (mostly) not changed, but pastoral practicability has been raised to the status of guiding principle. However the essence of MS is carried over to GIRM 38-41. Would that it were honoured!
    It is now possible to have a Sung Mass without subjecting one's ears to the pain of a celebrant unable even to hold his tono even vaguely recto.
  • toddevoss
    Posts: 101
    Glad to say that at my Parish for the noon mass, everything is sung (including the Gospel) except the responses to the first two readings. We have a priest who loves sung liturgy.
  • Considering that the ranked "degrees" apply to the now-obsolete category of missa cantata, I'd say it was superseded by the MR 1970.

    We all observe this, don't we?:

    The custom legitimately in use in certain places and widely confirmed by indults, of substituting other songs for the songs given in the Graduale for the Entrance, Offertory and Communion, can be retained according to the judgment of the competent territorial authority, as long as songs of this sort are in keeping with the parts of the Mass, with the feast or with the liturgical season. It is for the same territorial authority to approve the texts of these songs.
  • ...accordiing to the judgment of...
    '...competent territorial authority'. Is there not a certain oxymoroninity in the coupling of 'competent' and 'territorial authority'? Particularly in matters of liturgical music?
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,292
    Perhaps most territorial authorities are incompetent and they just wanted to warn us that you may be stuck with the authority you have. I think this also double talk for “find the authority you think is the competent one”.
  • Juridical competence -- i.e., the guy actually in charge. No doublespeak at all - technical precision.
  • It's false to say that MS is "obsolete". This is a nonsensical oversimplification. By this logic, no principles of liturgy or sacred music set forth in ANY documents before 1970 can be applied to the Novus Ordo Mass. After all, they were in force for different forms of the Roman Rite. I guess we can no longer appeal to Tra Le Sollecitudini as having anything to say about sacred music in our time. Darn it.

    A more worthwhile approach is to read the various documents on music and liturgy, both pre- and post-conciliar, and look for common themes and principles which can guide us. Yes, where current legislation (e.g. the praenotanda of the Roman Missal - i.e. the GIRM) directly contradicts earlier legislation, then we may make a case that the prior legislation has been superseded.

    There is much worthwhile advice in Musicam Sacram, and the three-level priority list for congregational participation (while a pastoral suggestion rather than a binding law) is perhaps the most practical. It also gives us a window into the mind of the church post-V2, which in turn can help us interpret the current liturgical legislation. For example, as I've pointed out many times publicly, the GIRM allows for choral propers explicitly in every case, but is more ambiguous when it comes to the Mass Ordinary. This harmonizes with Musicam Sacram's approach of having the Ordinary in the first and second priority for congregational singing, while the processional propers are in the third category.

    I don't really understand the push to dismiss and ignore Musicam Sacram as if it has no value or application post-1970. As smvanroode pointed out above, the Church herself does not seem to take this dismissive approach.
  • To answer the original post - we adhere to the principles of sung liturgy at most weekend and holy day masses at our cathedral (with the exception of one priest who has had medical difficulties with his vocal cords). The notable exception is singing the prayers of the faithful, which we haven't done much.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 764
    We (The Cathedral Parish, Bridgeport CT) do all of 29., 30a, 31a-d at every weekend mass with music. We also do 29 and 30a at all weekday masses with music.
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,576
    Jared makes a good point that it can still be a guiding document, even if no longer legislatively binding. Hermeneutic of continuity.

    And it breaks down rather simply into:
    1. Order
    2. Ordinary
    3. Proper

    As in Bishop Olmsted’s excellent “Singing the Mass”
    https://adoremus.org/2012/05/15/Singing-the-Mass/

    Many places (you know the type) are inclined to swap 1 and 2 and outright ignore 3. From the loft we really only have control over 2 and 3, unfortunately. I attended a Mass recently with a schola singing a hymn for procession and introit as the priest incensed the altar ... only to be followed by seven minutes of improvised introductory remarks casually slipping into a spoken “In the name of the Father...” The sacred momentum was lost the moment the priest’s gaze left the Missal and turned inward on his own thoughts.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,093
    We have sung liturgy on Sundays with the Ordinary, Preface, etc. chanted. We only do communion Propers, most of the time with some exceptions during the year. We sing hymns, but try to choose good hymns. As for MS and other older documents, l am not going to spend time trying to parse them and get what I like out of them. There is something to accepting where you are, what your pastor asks you to do, and moving on with your life. It isn't 1960 or 1610 and today's realities are quite different.
    Thanked by 1Carol
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,485
    MS was produced by the Consilium, so it is unsurprising that it expresses the principles which govern the OF. The problematic part is citing the paragraphs which had the force of liturgical law 28-36, these have either been carried forward into GIRM, or superseded. However we can note that
    MS28. ... These degrees are so arranged that the first may be used even by itself, but the second and third, wholly or partially, may never be used without the first. In this way the faithful will be continually led towards an ever greater participation in the singing.
    is followed by
    36. There is no reason why some of the Proper or Ordinary should not be sung in said Masses. ...
    So apparently we can sing what we like IF the celebrant does NOT sing the dialogues, the rules in MS28 only apply if he does sing!
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,739
    It isn't 1960 or 1610 and today's realities are quite different.


    Nothing like a firm foundation, eh, Charles?

    Jared's comment is dead-on. Defending modernity is not the position of the wise, although it certainly is practical.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,093
    You know, I am tired of fighting it. I do what I can in my little corner and the rest can take care of themselves. I do suspect that not much will change for any number of years.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,292
    You know, I am tired of fighting it.
    If you can’t beat ‘em, join them leave their tent and find a cave to pray, or join us out here in the desert. No use prolonging what will eventually die out anyway.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,093
    Francis, I don't think it will die out. Trad dreams to the contrary, I see no signs the current Roman Rite is going anywhere. It is the mainstream and likely to stay so. I am fortunate to have worked for good priests who wanted good, traditional music. All are not so fortunate.
  • Charles,

    The problem isn't with what's in the mainstream. The problem is the shrinking size of the mainstream itself. The TLM isn't the Mass of the future merely because it's hard-identity Catholicism and a wonderful teaching tool all in one. Rather, the Ordo of Paul VI is destined to extinction because the number of priests generated by parishes which are always looking for the novel is vanishingly small, and the number generated in TLM communities is, or soon will be, a veritable flood by comparison.
  • We (The Cathedral of St. Mary, Miami, FL) sing everything on Sundays except the 2 readings, the Gospel, the Creed, and Universal Prayer, although we did sing the Creed during the year of a synod from 2012 to 2013, and the Universal Prayer is sung only at Pontifical Masses. Everything we sing is done according to its proper, hierarchical form. Our rector sings recto tono, but our parochial vicar, priest in residence, and our Archbishop sing the official formulas with about 85% accuracy. Our entrance procession consists of a hymn followed by the SEP introit. For communion we use the SEP communio, followed by a hymn or motet, and a seasonal Marian antiphon as a post-communion meditation. This applies to our principal Mass in English (10am) and to Pontifical Masses. Pontifical Masses are usually multi-lingual events (English, Spanish and Haitian Kreyol), so we try to incorporate the Latin ordinary from Jubilate Deo and Latin reading acclamations, so all the choirs and the faithful may sing together. Our Sunday Mass in Spanish (12pm) is very similar except no propers (only during Advent and Lent) or sung reading acclamations, yet. Our early Mass in Kreyol (8am) is similar to the Spanish Mass, but the priest uses the formulas for his language. Their mass ordinary tends to be rather long, and they have not abandoned the "peace song", yet. We are always striving to learn and improve, but we are definitely playing the long game.

    MS came as an Instruction without a Missal. One can say this Instruction only applied to the 1962 Missal, but that doesn't make sense because those at the highest levels knew a reform was coming. This was the bridge between Vatican II (1965) and the Missal of Paul VI (1970). When the new Missal came out, it came with its own General Instruction. It's pretty general whereas MS is more specific. Where there is commonality there is no issue. Are there areas of conflicting directions? I honestly don't recall, but anyone feel free to post examples. I think you need both to point out the development of thought in the mind of the Church. I will never abandon Tra Le Sollecitudini or other pre-Vatican II documents and I think their guiding principles and most directives are applicable today. Likewise, everything MS and the GIRM instruct us to do, if it's a legitimate option, can be done well if the priest and music director have common sense, good communication, a real knowledge of the mind of the Church, and the choir and congregation know their function in the hierarchy. Great topic.
    Thanked by 1BruceL
  • Gustavo,

    I've never seen the word Creole spelled Kreyol. Could you explain the origin of this spelling, or is it something distinct from Creole?
  • .
    Thanked by 1Aristotle Esguerra
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,485
    It is called kreyòl ayisyen or just kreyòl ([kɣejɔl]) by its speakers, and créole haïtien in Standard French. Wikipedia
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,093
    The problem isn't with what's in the mainstream. The problem is the shrinking size of the mainstream itself. The TLM isn't the Mass of the future merely because it's hard-identity Catholicism and a wonderful teaching tool all in one. Rather, the Ordo of Paul VI is destined to extinction because the number of priests generated by parishes which are always looking for the novel is vanishingly small, and the number generated in TLM communities is, or soon will be, a veritable flood by comparison.


    I think the Novus Ordo is destined for revision, not extinction. TLM people are somewhat inbred and judge all others on their perceptions, which are often not representative of the majority. It is kind of a "we are the true believers and the others will eventually come around to us" mindset. Probably not. I go to NO parishes and I see good people who are devout and who are not looking to return to the TLM. There is nothing really novel in the NO other than some priests who want to do their own thing. Properly done with Eucharistic Prayer I, it is not that different from the TLM except in minor externals. In my own area, Catholic parishes are growing and we have seminarians.
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,085
    I live in S. Florida also and it is correct: "Kreyol" for Creole. It is the spelling in the dialect which is a variant of French. For people of Haiti mostly.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 1,889
    Creolization is a process giving rise to many more than a single language. Besides Kréol, Kreyòl, Kreyol, Krio and Kriol, the very long list of creole languages includes Gullah, Tok Pisin &c…
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • TLM people are somewhat inbred and judge all others on their perceptions, which are often not representative of the majority.

    I don't know that arguing from the perspective of "the majority" is authoritative. Further, let me point out that every statement you make regarding the prejudices of "TLM people" (perhaps a kinder, gentler version of "inbred") can be applied to virtually every other faction... including N.O.

    People - regardless of conservative or liberal, regardless of Catholic or Protestant (or other), regardless of religious or political persuasion ALL have their built-in prejudices. Sometimes the people who disclaim the loudest about prejudices of others are (without realizing it) themselves very highly prejudiced. How many times (for example) have we seen someone on the liberal end of the political spectrum excoriate the close-minded conservatives - only to, within short-order - prove themselves to be much more close-minded than anyone else? To insist that everyone MUST accept their viewpoint... or be deemed racist, bigoted, sexist, etc., etc..

    But to your point on majority... Look back at the history of the Church in England at the time of Henry VIII. The king wants a divorce. He creates his own version of the church. En masse, the entire hierarchy of the Church in England apostatizes - with the exception of ONE bishop (executed for high treason as an example to prevent others from following his brave example), St. John Fisher.

    Would the argument be (as it was to St. Thomas More), look, this new COE is the new reality? The majority of us now accept this viewpoint? All your bishops (except the one we put to death) have accepted it? Move on and accept the times?

    "Catholic" isn't synonymous with "majority".

    We all have to make our decisions regarding the Faith to the best of our ability. And, at some point, we all will have to answer for our decisions, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY ARE. If someone imagines that they are somehow "saved" simply because they attend the TLM, they are just as deceived as the fundamentalist who believes that he is saved because he has accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior... and just as deceived as someone who believes he is saved because he is obedient to his bishop in 18th century England.

    I think all of us have probably had bad experiences with people in a different area of the religious / political spectrum... and perhaps have had good experiences as well. I just think it is dangerous to draw sweeping conclusions from either experience. Close-minded people exist in all persuasions.

    Argue facts, not people.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,093
    Let me have the facts and you can take the people - please! I would agree there are exceptions in every group. But I think the major difference between the antics of Henry VIII and the current situation, is the NO is the result of actions resulting from a church council and a pope's decrees. Not the actions of a lustful and self-serving English monarch.

    I don't think the majority of bishops in this country intended to undermine the church and trample sacred rites, although those rites had become empty rituals seriously needing reform. We have a living, breathing church not a dusty museum. It can get a bit off course but means well and tries to do good.

    We all know the increase in evil in the world came from doing away with the maniple. Even the weather has been weird since then.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,485
    In understanding the aquiescence of English bishops to Henry's usurpation of ecclesiastical power in 1534, note that under the Acts of Praemunire of 1353 and 1392, the crown already exercised authority over all property matters of benefices, appointments and presentments. And that the king's orthodoxy was not at issue, heresy was only promoted by the next regime.
    AND Henry was a dangerous monster.
  • I don't think the majority of bishops in this country intended to undermine the church and trample sacred rites, although those rites had become empty rituals seriously needing reform. We have a living, breathing church not a dusty museum. It can get a bit off course but means well and tries to do good.


    Oh Charles, there you go again with the sweeping generalities about the "wishful-thinking trads". I know you are tired of fighting these battles, but others of us on here are young-ish and quite new to the fight to restore orthodoxy where it can be found. I have found your commentary to be dismissive of the opinions of those kinds of people in a sort of self-assured way that is, frankly, off-putting.. I have spent my entire late teens, early twenties and now most of my thirties fighting the liturgical battles in the Ordinary Form, and not just as a hobby or as some sort of philosophical exercise, but as a way to provide food, shelter, and support for my family. But I realized more and more that musical ignorance and/or ugliness/banality wasn't the problem; the problem was that my high-falootin' music (the kind taught by the church and advocated by this CMAA organization) wasn't in-sync with the practices of most clergy, liturgies, and churches, most of which were ugly and banal. And there isn't a darn thing a lay guy with a music degree can do to fix the spiritual and intellectual head of a modernist-leaning cleric.

    So the CMAA gives many of us great tools...to be used in practically very few places. So what happens to a person who has been given a great gift and can't use it? He either gives up the practice OR he goes somewhere where the gift is appreciated and where we can support our families. Many of us who frequent this site are former 'Reform of the Reform' folks who simply had no real valuable place in which to use our gifts, skills, and interests. To talk dismissively of more traditional-minded people is absurd to me. I get that we all know some traditional-minded people who are crabby constantly. We get it. But I dare you to come to my parish and find too many of those people. You stereotype a whole movement of people based on what appears to be way too few case-studies. Meanwhile, when other people come on here and say what even secular polls say - that only 25% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence - and when we point out that the loss of reverence because of the loss of reverent rites just might have something to do with that, we get laughed (but usually dismissed) out.

    With all the issues in the Church, I don't know that making another dismissive maniple joke is funny...or appropriate.




    Thanked by 1rich_enough
  • As for the original post, I would agree with JaredOstermann; we should take what we can from the document. Should a piece of legislation overrule a particular section, we can replace that section, but certainly not the whole. But with document-reading and attention span-keeping at a record low, I'm not too sure that will be a successful effort.


    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,093
    I find it funny how some Trads want to restore orthodoxy with a rite that is 500-years-old. That is hardly orthodox but a created rite from another age. It was the NO of its day.

    I think I may be fortunate in that I have not had to deal with craziness and silliness from wacky priests. My parish has never been anything but conservative and quite traditional in its music. We have been blessed with a succession of priests who were the same. Must go to play for an NO mass that is performed by the book with appropriate music, but no maniples. Just pipe organ, traditional Anglican-leaning hymns, along with propers and chant.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,093
    Let me elaborate a bit on that since I am back from the morning wars. The problems in the church don't result from either the presence of, or the lack of, externals. The deep problems and issues in the church result from internals. At present, the internals are somewhat skewed to the point some would say they are skewed up. Get the internals right and the externals will follow. The lex orandi might have been true in another age, but not now. The issue is the lack of belief.
    Thanked by 1MarkB
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,485
    And how do we rebuild belief?
    Let us consider the sacraments of priestly prayers, which having been handed down by the apostles are celebrated uniformly throughout the whole world and in every Catholic Church so that the law of praying might establish the law of believing [ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi]
    Prosper of Aquitane
    Thanked by 1tomjaw