Music At Mass

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1308878475' post='2257913']
Causing to much disruption or being divisive among fellow Catholics isn't good either. Sometimes unity overrides what 'we' (laity) should think done, because as long as it's not a sin nor heretical then the harm done is superficial at least from what I can see. Though I'm sure this isn't acceptable to you.
[/quote]
I don't think that puerile music at Mass is doing only superficial damage. I think it's done significantly more damage than we realize, most especially when we consider the opportunity cost. I.e. the benefits we're missing out on by not having proper sacred music: Gregorian chant. In reality we have all but thrown out a major aspect of Latin Catholic identity. The cost of that remains to be seen, but I'll say right now that I don't for one second think it's trivial.

[Cam42]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1308878475' post='2257913']
So, we judge them then? If authenticity is the realm of the Church and the members confuse the authenticity it should be the Churches realm right?



The [b]bolded[/b] statement I find curious, because it sounds as if 'doing' the motions is more valid then the heart felt intention. Christ called us to have not only doing say works of mercy, but that requires a good-will intentioned embodied through love. If that's not what you meant I apologize for the misinterpretation.



Causing to much disruption or being divisive among fellow Catholics isn't good either. Sometimes unity overrides what 'we' (laity) should think done, because as long as it's not a sin nor heretical then the harm done is superficial at least from what I can see. Though I'm sure this isn't acceptable to you.



Alright.
[/quote]

Doing what the Church asks is participatio actuosa. So, no, there is no quandry when fulfilling that....

How is Gregorian Chant causing disruption? It is what is proper to the Mass. The disruption comes when the music is disjointed and doesn't fit, but is forced upon the Mass, like a square peg in a round hole. The only unity that matters is that we unite our minds and souls through participatio actuosa, to the Mass. I don't think that I find what you're saying acceptable at all....you're focusing too much on the participatio activa and not on the participatio actuosa.

I would have you look at the article [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/ArticleText/Index/100/SubIndex/103/ArticleIndex/35"]Participation[/url]. Perhaps this will help you to understand the principle better. It seems that as of right now you don't. A couple of salient points:


[quote]But the participation of those present becomes fuller ([i]plenior[/i]) if to internal attention is joined [i]external[/i] participation, expressed, that is to say, by external actions such as the position of the body (genuflecting, standing, sitting), ceremonial gestures, or, in particular, the responses, prayers and singing . . .It is this harmonious form of participation that is referred to in pontifical documents when they speak of active participation ([i]participatio actuosa[/i]), the principal example of which is found in the celebrating priest and his ministers who, with due interior devotion and exact observance of the rubrics and ceremonies, minister at the altar.[/quote]

[quote] What are those actions that make for true active participation in the liturgy? These must be both internal and external in quality, since man is a rational creature with body and soul. The external actions must be intelligent and understood, sincere and pious internally. The Church proposes many bodily positions: kneeling, standing, walking, sitting, etc. It likewise proposes many human actions: singing, speaking, listening and above all else, the reception of the Holy Eucharist. They demand internal attention as well as external execution.[/quote]

[quote]Important too for any participation in the liturgy is the elevation of the spirit of the worshipper. Ultimately, liturgy is prayer, the supreme prayer of adoration, thanksgiving, petition and reparation. Prayer is the raising of the heart and the mind to God as Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. The means to achieve such elevation of the spirit in prayer onvolve all the activities of the human person, both spirit and body. Such means produce true [i]actuosa participatio[/i].[/quote]

[quote] The Church has always promoted Gregorian chant. Especially during this past century, the popes have fostered the music of the renaissance polyphonists. Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass in St. Peter's Basilica with the Vienna orchestra and singers doing Mozart's [i]Coronation Mass[/i]. Anyone who was present on that memorable occasion in that great church experienced true participation.[/quote]

[Sylvanna Imbris]

I think we'd all agree that the main point of the Mass is not what music is used, what people are wearing or how well the priest (or deacon) gives his homily. The whole point is to join in the sacrifice of Christ through participation in the Eucharist. Everything else is of lesser importance (not of NO importance, just less important). Since these things are less important, they should be arranged so that they will be to the spiritual benefit of the highest number of people.

So, as far as style of music is concerned, I think we need a balance of music at Mass.

Not everyone enjoys chant all the time. Not everyone can do chant the right way so that it is beautiful. But it is usually beautiful with words that have deep theological meaning. Tantum Ergo is one of the most beautiful chants I have ever heard and I would be sad to lose it. But I would also be sad to lose other hymns that are not chant, such as God With Hidden Majesty, Creator of the Stars of Night, At the Lamb's High Feast, Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones (and so many others).
I don't think that just ANY music is appropriate for Mass; the hymns should be theologically sound and have depth. But I do think that the style of music should be varied because people have different musical tastes. What moves some people may not move others, so it would be to the spiritual benefit of the highest number of Catholics if the music at Mass was varied.

[Maggyie]

The main issue for me is, can the music be done well? Traditional music is way better but... let's just say I have seen funerals where they try to be cool and have the congregation sing In Paradisum and it did not end well.

In that situation an easy round of "I am the Bread of Life" is preferable to a totally mutilated antiphon.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1308888334' post='2257964']
I think we'd all agree that the main point of the Mass is not what music is used, what people are wearing or how well the priest (or deacon) gives his homily. The whole point is to join in the sacrifice of Christ through participation in the Eucharist. Everything else is of lesser importance (not of NO importance, just less important). Since these things are less important, they should be arranged so that they will be to the spiritual benefit of the highest number of people.

So, as far as style of music is concerned, I think we need a balance of music at Mass.

Not everyone enjoys chant all the time. Not everyone can do chant the right way so that it is beautiful. But it is usually beautiful with words that have deep theological meaning. Tantum Ergo is one of the most beautiful chants I have ever heard and I would be sad to lose it. But I would also be sad to lose other hymns that are not chant, such as God With Hidden Majesty, Creator of the Stars of Night, At the Lamb's High Feast, Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones (and so many others).
I don't think that just ANY music is appropriate for Mass; the hymns should be theologically sound and have depth. But I do think that the style of music should be varied because people have different musical tastes. What moves some people may not move others, so it would be to the spiritual benefit of the highest number of Catholics if the music at Mass was varied.
[/quote]

No, it is about what music is used. Music is an important part of the liturgical action and insofar as that is the case, it is of utmost importance that we promote and expect what is proper to the Mass. Yes, participation in the Eucharist is key, but part of that participation is the music which is part of the prayer of the Mass which confects the Eucharist. So, I guess I disagree with the premise of your post.

As far as musical style is concerned, there is one that is acceptable...Gregorian Chant. It is to be the normative action and it is to be the type which is employed in the singing of the Mass. Musical taste is also pointless, because the sacrifice of the Mass is not about any one individual, but about the mind of the Church uniting at that moment and the faithful worshiping that action which is the unbloody sacrifice.

As far as "enjoying" chant, that is irrelevant. People don't come to Mass to be entertained. People come to Mass to worship. Chant is the most proper way to express the musical aspect of worship, therefore it should be used. When you speak of hymnody, they do have their place in the Church and I have supported that all the way through this thread and in other places on this site. I agree that it would be terrible to lose them, but the Mass is not the place for hymns...hymns are para-liturgical, not liturgical...

What authentically moves one to proper worship is not varied musical styles, but rather it is the consistency which the Church offers through Gregorian Chant. We are to unite our minds and souls to the redemptive action taking place on the altar...that doesn't come through hymnody being inserted into the Mass, but rather the Mass being sung and the music which is proper to the Mass being employed. Anything else detracts from the splendor that is the Roman Rite.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1308889603' post='2257972']
The main issue for me is, can the music be done well? Traditional music is way better but... let's just say I have seen funerals where they try to be cool and have the congregation sing In Paradisum and it did not end well.

In that situation an easy round of "I am the Bread of Life" is preferable to a totally mutilated antiphon.
[/quote]


Ironically, once chant is learned, it is much easier to sing than the contemporary stuff. Chant is very simple in it's melody, pitch and tambor. Most of the contemporary music is very diverse in it's melody and subsiquently very hard to learn to sing...

Starting on a DO is much easier than starting on a dissident 7th, as is the case with "On Eagles' Wings."

[Nihil Obstat]

In Paradisium, and even more Dies Irae are quite tricky (no way I could sing Dies Irae), but they're not really typical as far as chant goes. The Credo is more typical, and really anybody could sing the Credo. I know I could, even though I'm scared to death of singing.

[Papist]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308891364' post='2257980']
Ironically, once chant is learned, it is much easier to sing than the contemporary stuff. Chant is very simple in it's melody, pitch and tambor. Most of the contemporary music is very diverse in it's melody and subsiquently very hard to learn to sing...

Starting on a DO is much easier than starting on a dissident 7th, as is the case with "On Eagles' Wings."
[/quote]
I'd love to learn how to chant. But I was not blessed with the proper pipes. I remember in grade school a nun told me to back out and play when I entered the church for choir practice. I wished their was some place local I could take lessons.

[mortify]

Chant is really the only fitting music for Mass.

All the other stuff you can have at home.

Nuff said

[Cam42]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1308922035' post='2258059']
I'd love to learn how to chant. But I was not blessed with the proper pipes. I remember in grade school a nun told me to back out and play when I entered the church for choir practice. I wished their was some place local I could take lessons.
[/quote]

It was explained once that anyone can chant because all you have to be able to do to chant is talk really slow and draw out your words...eventually the melody will fall into place, moving up and down as the nume directs you. Getting pitch is best done by listening to those around you, not from trying to hit a key on an instrument.

While that isn't a perfect example, it does ring true...you should try it...I'll bet even to a lesser degree it works...

[Cam42]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308898735' post='2258000']
In Paradisium, and even more Dies Irae are quite tricky (no way I could sing Dies Irae), but they're not really typical as far as chant goes. The Credo is more typical, and really anybody could sing the Credo. I know I could, even though I'm scared to death of singing.
[/quote]

Worst case scenario, sing it recto tono...it is the simplest form of chant and it is incredibly easy and a good way to start, because EVERY note is the same. With regard to the liturgy, it is always a valid option for chanting, because it has been clear since the dawn of time that not everyone can sing, but everyone can chant on the same note, everyone...

[Papist]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308925810' post='2258076']
It was explained once that anyone can chant because all you have to be able to do to chant is talk really slow and draw out your words...eventually the melody will fall into place, moving up and down as the nume directs you. Getting pitch is best done by listening to those around you, not from trying to hit a key on an instrument.

While that isn't a perfect example, it does ring true...you should try it...I'll bet even to a lesser degree it works...
[/quote]
Thanks. I think I just might try it. I used to join in on the lauds and vespers at Belmont Abbey Monastery. Perhaps it would serve well to do that again.

[Sylvanna Imbris]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308891151' post='2257978']
What authentically moves one to proper worship is not varied musical styles, but rather it is the consistency which the Church offers through Gregorian Chant.
[/quote]

Thank you for this. I think I see your point more clearly now. If we all used Gregorian Chant at Mass then no matter where you go for Mass you will be able to fully participate because you won't have to worry that they are singing hymns you haven't learned. Your focus will be on what is happening at the altar. It makes good sense.
But I still think that you can't condemn the use of hymns at Mass. The Mass does change. In fact, in the US they've revised the missal and we'll begin to see the changes this advent. It will be hard, at least for me, because it will not be the same. But I know that what is essential to the Mass has not and will never change. The Mass existed before the Novus Ordo was written and it existed before Gregorian Chant was invented. When I visit a different church for Mass I sometimes feel a bit out of place when they sing hymns I've never heard, but that doesn't draw my attention away from the Mass. It reminds me that the way I prefer the Mass to be done is not the only way, that the Mass is not about my preferences or how well I fit in, it is about the central mystery we all share: the sacrifice of Christ.
I agree that Gregorian Chant at Mass would make the experience of the Mass more consistent from place to place. But I don't see why hymns would be [i]improper[/i] for Mass. You might prefer not to use them, so as to promote greater unity, but I wouldn't say they are improper. (Keep in mind many people have grown up with the Novus Ordo and the use of hymns, so we've never known anything else. I'd always thought that so long as the Mass was done according to the missal it was done properly...the rest was up to the local church.)

[Cam42]

[quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1308929294' post='2258100']
Thank you for this. I think I see your point more clearly now. If we all used Gregorian Chant at Mass then no matter where you go for Mass you will be able to fully participate because you won't have to worry that they are singing hymns you haven't learned. Your focus will be on what is happening at the altar. It makes good sense.
But I still think that you can't condemn the use of hymns at Mass. The Mass does change. In fact, in the US they've revised the missal and we'll begin to see the changes this advent. It will be hard, at least for me, because it will not be the same. But I know that what is essential to the Mass has not and will never change. The Mass existed before the Novus Ordo was written and it existed before Gregorian Chant was invented. When I visit a different church for Mass I sometimes feel a bit out of place when they sing hymns I've never heard, but that doesn't draw my attention away from the Mass. It reminds me that the way I prefer the Mass to be done is not the only way, that the Mass is not about my preferences or how well I fit in, it is about the central mystery we all share: the sacrifice of Christ.
I agree that Gregorian Chant at Mass would make the experience of the Mass more consistent from place to place. But I don't see why hymns would be [i]improper[/i] for Mass. You might prefer not to use them, so as to promote greater unity, but I wouldn't say they are improper. (Keep in mind many people have grown up with the Novus Ordo and the use of hymns, so we've never known anything else. I'd always thought that so long as the Mass was done according to the missal it was done properly...the rest was up to the local church.)
[/quote]

First. You're welcome.

Second. The Mass hasn't changed, the translation of the Mass has changed. If it were just celebrated in Latin, all of this would be a moot issue, right? If Mass were in Latin, there wouldn't be in-fighting over translations, or wording or any of that. And by moving toward a common language for all of the Masses in all of the World, it would stand to reason that other things could become eaiser to regulate, like the rubrics and music, because there would not need to be adaptations, based upon what is said when and how...and what translation of the music you'll have to find.

Third. I've shown several times that hymnody isn't part of the mind of the Church when it comes to the Mass. Hymnody is the mind of man who assists at Mass. That is a big difference and it is key. The Mass is not about he who assists, because he who assists, simply partakes in a bigger experience. it is the Church herself who regulates and determines...it is then the job of the bishop to pour forth that regulation, and where he cannot, he has a priest to do it for him...so even the priest and bishop don't really have a say in how the regulation goes, but rather that they simply implement it according to the mind of the Church (or Authentic Magisterium).

Finally, I grew up with the Novus Ordo too. I was born after Vatican Council II...I took the time to study and eventually made it my focus in college and postgrad. So, I think to just say it was up to the local Church isn't quite good enough...and the Church herself came to the same conclusion at the end of the document Redemptionis Sacramentum.

[Cam42]

[quote]The Holy See published on May 31 a letter by the pope written on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, founded by St. [b][b]Pius[/b] [/b]X. The letter was addressed to Cardinal [b][b]Zenon Grocholewski[/b][/b], Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education and Grand Chancellor of the Institute, who read it publicly on May 26 at the opening of the International Congress for Sacred Music, which was held in Rome from May 26 to June 1. In it Benedict XVI explains that the initiative of St. Pius X, following his Motu Proprio [i]Tra le Sollecitudini[/i] dated November 22, 1903, had set the agenda for a profound reform of liturgical music in the tradition of the Church, apart from the influence of profane styles of music.

The Holy Father underscores the preeminence of Gregorian chant: “This magisterial intervention endowed the universal Church with a center of studies and teaching that would faithfully and appropriately transmit the directives indicated by the Supreme Pontiff, who intended a return to the great Gregorian tradition. In 100 years of activity, this Institute has assimilated, developed, and expressed musically this papal teaching, as well as that of Vatican Council II, to illumine and guide the work of composers of liturgical music, choirmasters, liturgists, musicians, and instructors” in this field.

Then the Supreme Pontiff recalls the purpose of sacred music, which is the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful: “The fundamental criteria are respect for tradition, a sense of prayer, dignity, and beauty; full adherence to liturgical texts and expressions; the correct participation of the assembly and, therefore, a legitimate adaptation to particular cultures, at the same time maintaining the universality of language; the primacy of Gregorian chant … and the careful assessment of other expressive forms that make up the cultural patrimony of the Church, especially but not just polyphony; and the importance of the [i]schola cantorum[/i], particularly in cathedral churches.”

These are important criteria, the pope continues, “which should be considered attentively even today”. Gregorian chant, the supreme model of sacred music, polyphony and the [i]schola cantorum [/i]have wrongly been considered “as the expression of a concept befitting a past that should be forgotten and ignored, because they limited the freedom and creativity of individuals and communities.” But the authentic subject of the liturgy is neither the individual nor the group, Benedict XVI recalled. “It is primarily God’s action through the Church with its history, its rich tradition, and its creativity.”

“On the basis of these sure and lasting elements,” he concludes, “which are accompanied by centuries of experience, I encourage you to perform your service of professionally training students, so that they may acquire a serious, profound competence in the different disciplines of sacred music.”

Several months earlier, Cardinal [b]Domenico Bartolucci[/b], Perpetual Director of the Sistine Chapel Choir, expressed his views about the lost preeminence of sacred music in an interview entitled “The Cardinalate and the Choir”, published in [i]30giorni [/i][English edition: [i]30DAYS[/i]] in November 2010. “After the Second Vatican Council they did away with Latin, which was a tragic mistake. With the promulgation of the 1970 Missal, the Proper prayers—the heritage of a millennium—were eliminated, and the opportunity to sing the Ordinary chants was considerably limited by the introduction of vernacular languages…. Since then, sacred music and the [i]scholae cantorum[/i] have been definitively removed from the liturgy, despite the recommendations of the 1963 Constitution on the Liturgy, [i]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/i], and the 1964 Motu Proprio [i]Sacram Liturgiam[/i]…. Before those [i]aggiornamenti[/i] [attempts to ‘update’ the Liturgy], the people sang full-throatedly at vespers, during the Stations of the Cross, Solemn Masses, and processions. They sang in Latin, the universal language of the Church. During the funeral liturgy, they all intoned the [i]Libera me, Domine[/i], the [i]In Paradisum[/i] and the [i]De Profundis[/i]. They all responded to the [i]Te Deum[/i], the [i]Veni Creator Spiritus[/i], and the [i]Credo[/i]. Today there has been a proliferation of ditties. There are so many that very few people know them, and almost nobody sings them.”

The Higher School of Sacred Music opened on January 3, 1911, and was confirmed that same year by the pastoral letter [i]Expleverunt[/i] dated November 4. On July 10, 1914, by a rescript from the Secretariat of State, the School was declared a Pontifical Institute with the faculty of conferring academic degrees. Pius XI, with his motu proprio [i]Ad musicae sacrae restitutionem[/i] (November 22, 1922) issued its statutes and confirmed its immediate dependence on the Apostolic See. [/quote]

[url="http://www.radiovaticana.org/en1/articolo.asp?c=491943"]source[/url]
[url="http://www.dici.org/en/news/benedict-xvi-recalls-the-vocation-of-liturgical-music/"]source[/url]


I think that this article lends good credence to where the mind of Pope Benedict lies...as well as Card. Bartolucci, who was choirmaster of the Capella Sistina for many years...two leading authorities on Music in the Church today.

[Sylvanna Imbris]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308933830' post='2258119']
[quote]
The Holy See published on May 31 a letter by the pope written on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, founded by St. [b][b]Pius[/b] [/b]X. The letter was addressed to Cardinal [b][b]Zenon Grocholewski[/b][/b], Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education and Grand Chancellor of the Institute, who read it publicly on May 26 at the opening of the International Congress for Sacred Music, which was held in Rome from May 26 to June 1. In it Benedict XVI explains that the initiative of St. Pius X, following his Motu Proprio [i]Tra le Sollecitudini[/i] dated November 22, 1903, had set the agenda for a profound reform of liturgical music in the tradition of the Church, apart from the influence of profane styles of music.
[/quote]
[/quote]
That sounds pretty good, actually. There is this one Gloria they sing at my church...it sounds like the theme song for Jeopardy and it is impossible for me to sing. I'd be glad to be done with that! I'd be a bit sad to lose the hymns during Mass, but now I can see that the importance of Gregorian Chant and the regulation of music at Mass is not just a "pre Vatican II" idea. I guess you learn something new every day. Thanks Cam!

[Cam42]

[quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1308936100' post='2258127']
That sounds pretty good, actually. There is this one Gloria they sing at my church...it sounds like the theme song for Jeopardy and it is impossible for me to sing. I'd be glad to be done with that! I'd be a bit sad to lose the hymns during Mass, but now I can see that the importance of Gregorian Chant and the regulation of music at Mass is not just a "pre Vatican II" idea. I guess you learn something new every day. Thanks Cam!
[/quote]

You're welcome....this is about the hermeneutic of continuity and correcting the hermeneutic of rupture after all....

Take this and learn from it....then take it to your parish and your Catholic friends...they need to know this too...the Church is a wonderful place, if the leaders use the light that was given to them.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Cam42

[Cam42]

[quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1308936100' post='2258127']
That sounds pretty good, actually. There is this one Gloria they sing at my church...it sounds like the theme song for Jeopardy and it is impossible for me to sing. I'd be glad to be done with that! I'd be a bit sad to lose the hymns during Mass, but now I can see that the importance of Gregorian Chant and the regulation of music at Mass is not just a "pre Vatican II" idea. I guess you learn something new every day. Thanks Cam!
[/quote]

Not to belabor the point, but the whole new translation thing...not necessarily a fix....listen to Bob Hurd's new rendition...

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGlpu6_c3gQ[/media]

*DISCLAIMER*

To all composers who might be reading this, please don't watch [i]Fiddler on the Roof[/i] right before you sit down to compose....this is what you get!!!
--Thanks, All Catholics in the known world

*DISCLAIMER*

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1308853734' post='2257745']
I wonder what kind of music was used before Gregorian chant was invented? Do you supposed people opposed chant at the time as being too "innovative?"
[/quote]
That is an odd way of looking at things historically. Change hasn't happened like it has recently with the new mass. Pope Gregory's boys didn't just drop in on chancery offices, hand the priests books and say "we're singing this now". The style of singing that is chant always "was". It in fact grew from an ancient Hebrew tradition. As I have learned from certain easterners, music is an organic act of worship; it is a way of expressing the prayer with more than just words.

[quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1308888334' post='2257964']
I think we'd all agree that the main point of the Mass is not what music is used, what people are wearing or how well the priest (or deacon) gives his homily. The whole point is to join in the sacrifice of Christ through participation in the Eucharist. Everything else is of lesser importance (not of NO importance, just less important). Since these things are less important, they should be arranged so that they will be to the spiritual benefit of the highest number of people.

So, as far as style of music is concerned, I think we need a balance of music at Mass.

Not everyone enjoys chant all the time. Not everyone can do chant the right way so that it is beautiful. But it is usually beautiful with words that have deep theological meaning. Tantum Ergo is one of the most beautiful chants I have ever heard and I would be sad to lose it. But I would also be sad to lose other hymns that are not chant, such as God With Hidden Majesty, Creator of the Stars of Night, At the Lamb's High Feast, Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones (and so many others).
I don't think that just ANY music is appropriate for Mass; the hymns should be theologically sound and have depth. But I do think that the style of music should be varied because people have different musical tastes. What moves some people may not move others, so it would be to the spiritual benefit of the highest number of Catholics if the music at Mass was varied.
[/quote]
I don't think anyone agrees with you in this thread so far. Even Pencil'd One is arguing his side with such conviction. It would be unreasonable for him to do so if he didn't believe that externals are just externals. We stand as humans before Christ. This means that we worship at his sacrifice with our whole beings--physical, mental, spiritual--so that makes way for the need of colours and ornaments and proper music that is outside the world we come from. The deepest problem in this age is people's disconnects from themselves in order to justify what is happening around them in liturgy. That's not how Catholics have always thought, nor is it authentic. In any case, in this post and your subsequent, you seem to be lost as to what we would sing in chant every week (I gather this because you only mention a handful of what you consider "acceptable" hymns). Take a gander at the new mass's [url="http://www.musicasacra.com/books/gregorianmissal-eng.pdf"]Gregorian Missal[/url]. When you download the PDF, look under the "Liturgical year" bookmark list. You will see that it is brimming with chants for every Sunday of the liturgical year. Scroll down to Corpus Christi (feast was yesterday, but there is probably an indult where you're at to have it Sunday) on pg 413 and look at the texts. These are what Mother Church give to us. They aren't a thing of a few people's opinions, but something given to us by Her. I'm not asking you to sing it, but keep in mind what the text is and how it fits together as worship.

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1308922035' post='2258059']
I'd love to learn how to chant. But I was not blessed with the proper pipes. I remember in grade school a nun told me to back out and play when I entered the church for choir practice. I wished their was some place local I could take lessons.
[/quote]
In the case of music, don't listen to what people say in elementary school. Even the most sweetest sounding of choir boy whipper snappers can "lose" it later in life. Our voices undergo a lot of change in adolescence, and actually don't even settle until 25/26, but gets more stable before then. What your vocal folds are are a series of muscles, muscles which can be trained just like your hand, trained in such a way that they can do precise things.

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1308927536' post='2258087']
Thanks. I think I just might try it. I used to join in on the lauds and vespers at Belmont Abbey Monastery. Perhaps it would serve well to do that again.
[/quote]
Yes. Do take the oportunity if it is there! Also, [url="http://ceciliaschola.org/pdf/squarenotes.pdf"]check this out[/url]

[jeffpugh]

Double post. I forgot sometimes this site can be slow, so I clicked post twice

Edited June 24, 2011 by Sacred Music Man