A Latin mass should be just that, a mass in its entirety in Latin, not a pastiche of languages - and, that includes the lectionary, which should be in the language that the mass is in!
I feel the same about English masses, which can be just as beautiful as Latin ones. Choose one Language, be it Latin, English, or Urdu, and celebrate the entire mass in it, including the lectionary and prayers of the faithful. This is the most satisfying and beautiful.
Pastors of souls, having taken into consideration pastoral usefulness and the character of their own language, should see whether parts of the heritage of sacred music, written in previous centuries for Latin texts, could also be conveniently used, not only in liturgical celebrations in Latin but also in those performed in the vernacular. There is nothing to prevent different parts in one and the same celebration being sung in different languages. (Musicam sacram 51)
Choose one Language, be it Latin, English, or Urdu, and celebrate the entire mass in it, including the lectionary and prayers of the faithful.
It's pretty standard (and tolerated by legitimate authority) in German-speaking countries to include German hymns and motets at EF High Masses, even replacing parts of the Proper or Ordinary. In the Anglosphere, why would it be desirable to include pieces that are neither in the vernacular nor the liturgical language? It would seem to contradict another reason you stated above, i.e.:The Gregorian repertory and Latin polyphony can be sung, but also supplemented ad lib. by things one can never perform in the EF, say Howells or Stanford in English, Bach and Rheinberger and Brahms in German, an extra hymn or two.
Speakers of all languages find themselves united (save for the homily) and on equal footing; no group is left out.
pretty standard (and tolerated by legitimate authority) in German-speaking countries
So much for wide and generous...Those who take "Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion" as something beyond the mainstream, only for certain circumstances, should also take "Extraordinary Form" in the same light.
But who determines what constitutes "proper" celebration? Does it mean you use a Latin responsorial psalm instead of the gradual? Or insist on congregational singing of the Credo and Sanctus even though other parts of the Ordinary are in polyphony? Or that you don't genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament during the liturgy if you have business in the sanctuary? And then what of the "very little" you admit is "theologically deficient when compared to the TLM"?Latin NO isn't a "compromise" - if celebrated properly, there is very little that is directly theologically deficient when compared to the TLM. More importantly, it cements that a hard-line dichotomy between free-for-all NO and stuffy, legalistic TLM Masses does not actually exist.
It's enlightening to look into the positions taken by Messiaen, Duruflé, and Langlais after the council. The same can be said for certain leaders of the [old] Liturgical Movement such as Martin Hellriegel.The latter never materialized and it’s intriguing that after leaving the choir school he founded, Marier took a turn to the right and worked exclusively in Usus Antiquior settings. Was it a tragic loss or did he just see the writing on the wall?
It's pretty standard (and tolerated by legitimate authority) in German-speaking countries to include German hymns and motets at EF High Masses, even replacing parts of the Proper or Ordinary. In the Anglosphere, why would it be desirable to include pieces that are neither in the vernacular nor the liturgical language? It would seem to contradict another reason you stated above, i.e.: "Speakers of all languages find themselves united (save for the homily) and on equal footing; no group is left out."
To Kwasniewski and many others committed to the old rite, reform is wishful thinking.
Marier took a turn to the right and worked exclusively in Usus Antiquior settings. Was it a tragic loss or did he just see the writing on the wall?
This is going from stuffy to arrogantly stupid to crazy people
I would like to request that the forum moderator insert a reminder into this thread.
Stuffy?, Elitist?, Uppity?, etc. These and similar epithets have absolutely no objective meaning or reference when applied to one's musical or artistic preferences. They are best ignored or put down. What they really mean is 'I don't at all like this, so I will say that something is wrong with it, not me'.Are we stuffy?
This is going from stuffy to arrogantly stupid to crazy people
I would like to request that the forum moderator insert a reminder into this thread.
I would hate to see a world in which devout people attached to the NO are deprived of the ministrations of orthodox and orthoprax musicians and clergy, because these have all left for traditionalism, given the increasing disappearance of the RotR and its replacement with strong traditionalism.
The current traditionalism is more extremist and in need of reform than any that existed in 1960. Not good.
The people, mostly.
and a tiny sample of what he wrote when commissioned to describe what the rubricists had laid downIt is a queer type of mind that actually is interested in knowing whether the deacon should stand at the right or the left of someone else at some moment
Churches of the Orthodox tradition seem to achieve dignified, and more importantly God-centered, worship without the need to reduce the sacred ministers to automata.If the Sanctissimum be reserved in the tabernacle, he first genuflects, otherwise he bows low towards the altar cross. He incenses the altar cross with three double incensings. Then he either genuflects or bows, as he did before. If there are relics or images between the candlesticks he next incenses these, first those on the gospel side, making two double swings of the thurible for all of them together, without moving himself from the middle of the altar, or bowing to them. He again bows to the cross, or genuflects to the Blessed Sacrament, and incenses in the same way those on the epistle side. Then, without again bowing or genuflecting, he continues the incensing of the altar. He walks before the altar to the epistle side ; as he does so he incenses it over the upper part, the mensa, with three single swings of the thurible, one opposite each of the altar candles. At the epistle corner he swings the thurible twice along the side, then returns to the middle, again making ...
conservative Jews; between orthodox and reform
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.