Gregorian Chant

[Oik]

I wasn't aware that The Church had asked the faithful to stop having gregorian chant in the liturgy... As far as I know, our 'tradition' still holds that it has 'pride of place.' I'm surprised that Catholics in the US even know what gregorian chant is...

Usually if you ask, they say something like "Oh yeah, that CD that those monks put out a cuple of years ago... The Church still uses that boring stuff..."

[Cam42]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Apr 17 2005, 01:12 PM'] Not a single source given so far has said that the Chant is required at mass. I'm all for it, but to say it is necessary rather than preferable is wrong.

And Cam, liberal is a political word, not a religious word.

[/quote]
So what.....this is a political issue. Church politics. You may not like the language, but there is not a better way to get the point across. I suppose that I could say the liturgically obtuse, but then again, you would probably attack me on that too, now wouldn't you.

If you don't think that political agendas and ideologies have entered into this, then you are naive......incidentally, I am conservative. It is my intention to conserve the liturgy in the way that it is intended and I do not want to liberate it into my own image or idealogue.

There are politics in the Church as well....sorry bud.

Oh and it is necessary:
[quote][b]This instruction is binding on all rites of the Latin Church. Thus, what is said of Gregorian chant applies to all the chants which are used in other Latin rites.[/b]

Sacred music is to be taken generally in this instruction as embracing both vocal and instrumental music. But at times it will be limited to instrumental music only, as will be clear from the context.

A church ordinarily means any sacred place; this includes a church in the strict sense, as well as public, semipublic, and private oratories; again the context itself may restrict the meaning to a church in the strict sense. (De Musica Sacra no. 11)[/quote]

[quote][b]The standard editions of the liturgical chant of the Roman Church are:
Roman Gradual, with the Ordinary of the Mass.
Roman Antiphonal, for the Day Hours.
Offices of the Dead, Holy Week, and Christmas.[/b] (DMS no. 56)[/quote]

[quote][b]Thus, the authentic Gregorian chant is that which is published in the standard Vatican editions[/b], or which has been approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites for a particular church or religious community. Publishers who have this authorization are obliged, therefore, to reproduce both the melody, and the text exactly as approved in all details.

The rhythmic signs which have been inserted into some chant editions on private authority are permitted so long as they not alter the melodic line of the grouping of the notes, as they appear in the Vatican editions. (DMS no. 58)[/quote]

That is pretty authoritative.....while it doesn't say necessary, it doesn't necessairly need to, in order for it to be binding.

Cam

[Brother Adam]

Wow, that's pretty charitable, and so is Dust for actually letting you have Church Scholar next to your name. Is it safe to bet that you think Novus Ordo masses are invalid too?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

vice versa, perhaps?



How does "pride of place" translate to "unnecessary"?? Why don't you like chant, Bro. Adam?

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Apr 17 2005, 02:12 PM'] Not a single source given so far has said that the Chant is required at mass. [b]I'm all for it, but to say it is necessary rather than preferable is wrong. [/b] [/quote]
...

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Well, if something is given "[b]pride[/b] of place" this would assume that it already has [b]A[/b] place, does it not?

[Brother Adam]

Sure. But where is the line drawn? Is stating that the chant must be a required part of every mass and liturgical event in the Church the correct line? Who decides the line? Is it right for the laity to decide?

[Oik]

Why is the Church in America running a way from our tradition?

I see cam's point, I see Adam's point.

My point: Why is there even a question of whether Chant HAS to be used, why are we running a way from it?

At the same time, why is there such a strong condemnation on music that ISN'T liturgically incorrect. If the lyrics conform and if the style conforms, then guitars ARE allowed.

Should we then pretend that guitars are the greatest thing to happen since gregorian chant?

Should we then condemn guitars in Mass?


Brothers and Sisters, we are all Catholics, so why push each other out of the pews in an attempt to make room for the ones who aren't coming to Mass anyway?

[Brother Adam]

Oik,
You put that very well.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Well put, Oik.

I prefer chant. That's not to say that I'm against other hymns.

We chant in Latin and English quite a bit in the Lincoln Diocese, especially for the Mass parts and meditation hymns. I do think it should carry pride of place, but I want to know where the line is, too.

The fact is that the laity is supposed to participate and they don't know many chants, not to mention the chant notation.

I'd also like to know if the pride of place can only go to Gregorian chant. What about English chants? What about psalm tones?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

because it shouldn't be about changing the Mass to fit the people (that's giving in). it should be about changing the people to fit the Mass... and that happens through example and prayer.

I have not condemned guitars in this thread. I have simply stated my support for gregorian chant.

the line is drawn in the rubrics. it's not about stretching out what's not explicitly stated in the rubrics so we can do what we want.. it's about recognizing the sacredness of the Mass and understanding the rubrics enough to follow them simply and with common sense.

[Brother Adam]

Insomuch as the Church is reaching the people. The Church exists to evangelize.

Here is a question - what do the Bishops in the Church have to say about how the mass is carried out in America?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Apr 17 2005, 03:41 PM'] because it shouldn't be about changing the Mass to fit the people (that's giving in). it should be about changing the people to fit the Mass... and that happens through example and prayer.

I have not condemned guitars in this thread. I have simply stated my support for gregorian chant.

the line is drawn in the rubrics. it's not about stretching out what's not explicitly stated in the rubrics so we can do what we want.. it's about recognizing the sacredness of the Mass and understanding the rubrics enough to follow them simply and with common sense. [/quote]
I think that if people have any room to "stretch out whats not explicitly stated" then there is not much of a line in the rubrics.

We have guitars at the Newman Center, statistically the most orthodox parish in the most orthodox diocese in the US. It's not an attempt to stretch the rules. It's an attempt to follow the Church's directives in allowing true stewardship. Our guitar players want to help at Mass, so we give them a place.

Chant and sacred music still takes precedence very clearly.

We had "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence" at Mass today. The lyrics are a translation from the Liturgy of St. James of the Fourth Century. Then I had a solo in "O Filii et Filiae." We sang good, traditional hymns (I LOVE St. Michael's Hymnal).

Where is the line?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote]
Here is a question - what do the Bishops in the Church have to say about how the mass is carried out in America?[/quote]
privately, or 'on the record'?

Raph--
There is a line. And it's pretty clear... anything outside the scope of the rubrics is "crossing" it.

Edited April 17, 2005 by Fides_et_Ratio

[Brother Adam]

Don't forget, I'm a new Catholic. I don't find it amusing in the least. Or are you saying that you can do it better and should be teaching the Bishops?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Apr 17 2005, 03:52 PM'] Raph--
There is a line. And it's pretty clear... anything outside the scope of the rubrics is "crossing" it. [/quote]
If it's so clear, then tell us what it is and document it. You have yet to do so. I want to abide by the Church's teachings, but I think there is some bias being brought in here.

I love chant...I want an excuse to agree, don't think I'm trying not to.

[Guest GumbySmile]

I believe that an important point to this issue is "why"?

Today we need to understand "why" we put emphasis on music in the mass. Why do we care? It is easy to just call liturgical issues "political" and therefore disregard the importance of these liturgical issues. I think it is important to look at the symbolic nature of what Gregorian Chant is all about. What do you think? Why do you think that the church has said that it has "pride of place"? Why does she emphasize the organ? What is specific about these vessels or "instruments" to convey the message of the Eucharistic sacrifice? Why do we regard modern music used in the liturgy, as one previous poster thinks, not as reverent as Gregorian Chant?

What do you think?

Totus Tuus
Christopher Vigil

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]All other things being equal, Gregorian chant holds pride of place because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy. [b]Other types of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful. Since faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lord's Prayer, set to the simpler melodies.[/b][/quote]

Thought a little context from Zenit would be helpful.

Just about everyone at my parish knows the Lord's Prayer in chant, and the hymnal has enough of a guide that they could do it in Latin (although, being almost entirely native English speakers, we don't do the Creed in music, and have no need for the common language of Latin, although I think it would be cool if we did). They know the Mass parts in chant. When we use non-chant music, we do go by the above rule. It seems that this is quite fine.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Apr 17 2005, 02:57 PM'] Don't forget, I'm a new Catholic. I don't find it amusing in the least. Or are you saying that you can do it better and should be teaching the Bishops? [/quote]

Whoa, hold up!
Where did I ever imply such a thing?! .. I didn't.





Raph--
What you posted from Zenit, was what I was going to post for the line. Other things are permissabe "provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful". I think that's pretty clear.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Apr 17 2005, 04:06 PM'] Raph--
What you posted from Zenit, was what I was going to post for the line. Other things are permissabe "provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful". I think that's pretty clear. [/quote]
That is clear. I don't see what this debate is all about, then. I think Adam would agree with that paragraph quite well.