Concerning Instruments at Mass - Part II

[zunshynn]

There's another thread with them... not sure why we started a new one... but I'll find that one for you. It would be quite a lot for him to repost.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=57851&hl=concerning+instruments"]Concerning Instruments at Mass[/url]

he also posted most of the documents in one post[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=53270&hl=music"] here[/url]

Edited October 16, 2006 by zunshynn

[Cam42]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1093300' date='Oct 16 2006, 05:07 PM']
Cam, could you requote the documents please, I'm just wondering what they say.
[/quote]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=57851&hl=guitars"]Concerning Instruments At Mass..., mods: please don't move this yet[/url]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=50426&hl=guitars"]For Cam - aucostic guitars[/url]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=49508&hl=guitars"] Ahem....., I told you so.....[/url]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=34615&hl=guitars"]Are lturgical documents prohibitive, of all they do not prescribe?[/url]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=31830&hl=guitars"]Yay....the Vernacular, you gotta read it to believe it.[/url]

Those are a few links good luck that is about 50 pages of reading or so.....I am not going to requote everything.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=49508&st=180&p=923095&#entry923095"]LINK: To the defining documentation.[/url]

By the way, if these documents that I quote are outdated, scardella, why are they still being quoted as late as Redemptoris Sacramentum? Uh oh, methinks that these ancient documents from the 20th century still carry weight.

[scardella]

Cam,

This is all I'm going to say. I've read your quotes and your arguments. They have not convinced me of your position. If you believe I am wrong, pray for me. I will do the same for you.

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' post='1093460' date='Oct 16 2006, 07:59 PM']
Cam,

This is all I'm going to say. I've read your quotes and your arguments. They have not convinced me of your position. If you believe I am wrong, pray for me. I will do the same for you.
[/quote]

I pray for you every day, but that doesn't change the fact that you have not proven or supported your position adequately.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='scardella' post='1093274' date='Oct 16 2006, 05:32 PM']
4. It's nowhere specifically prohibited, and the current GIRM allows for stringed instruments.
[/quote]

Could you link us to the specific part of the GIRM that concerns instruments? I'd be interested to know what it says, since it is goth recent and official.

Edited October 17, 2006 by Norseman82

[scardella]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1093548' date='Oct 16 2006, 11:06 PM']
Could you link us to the specific part of the GIRM that concerns instruments? I'd be interested to know what it says, since it is goth recent and official.
[/quote]

It's from Chapter IX of the GIRM ([url="http://www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/chapter9.shtml"]http://www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/chapter9.shtml[/url]):

[quote]While the organ is to be accorded pride of place, other wind, stringed, or percussion instruments may be used in liturgical services in the dioceses of the United States of America, according to longstanding local usage, provided they are truly apt for sacred use or can be rendered apt.[/quote]

I haven't found a guideline or rule for aptness, nor what constitutes longstanding. (Hence, my argument for the prudential judgement of the musical director.)

Also, I want to throw this document in, which I just ran across (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/musiccathworship.shtml)

[quote]37. Song is not the only kind of music suitable for liturgical celebration. Music performed on the organ and other instruments can stimulate feelings of joy and contemplation at appropriate times. This can be done effectively at the following points: an instrumental prelude, a soft background to a spoken psalm, at the preparation of the gifts in place of singing, during portions of the communion rite, and the recessional. In the dioceses of the United States, "musical instruments other than the organ may be used in liturgical services, provided they are played in a manner that is suitable to public worship."' This decision deliberately refrains from singling out specific instruments. Their use depends on circumstances, the nature of the congregation, etc.[/quote]

Edited October 17, 2006 by scardella

[Cam42]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1093548' date='Oct 16 2006, 10:06 PM']
Could you link us to the specific part of the GIRM that concerns instruments? I'd be interested to know what it says, since it is goth recent and official.
[/quote]

[quote name='GIRM #393'] Bearing in mind the important place that singing has in a celebration as a necessary or integral part of the Liturgy, all musical settings of the texts for the people's responses and acclamations in the Order of Mass and for special rites that occur in the course of the liturgical year must be submitted to the Secretariat for the Liturgy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for review and approval prior to publication.

While the organ is to be accorded pride of place, other wind, stringed, or percussion instruments may be used in liturgical services in the dioceses of the United States of America, according to longstanding local usage, provided they are truly apt for sacred use or can be rendered apt.[/quote]
[i]Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 112.[/i]

[quote name='Sacrosanctum Concilium #112']The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy.

[b]Holy Scripture, indeed, has bestowed praise upon sacred song, and the same may be said of the fathers of the Church and of [u]the Roman pontiffs who in recent times, led by St. Pius X, have explained more precisely the ministerial function supplied by sacred music in the service of the Lord[/u].[/b]

Therefore sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites. But the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed qualities, and admits them into divine worship.

Accordingly, the sacred Council, keeping to the norms and precepts of ecclesiastical tradition and discipline, and having regard to the purpose of sacred music, which is the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful, decrees as follows.[/quote]

Led by whom? Pope St. Pius X? Who wrote Tra Le Sollectudini? Oh yeah, Pope St. Pius X. But that doestn't matter, because the powers that be say that those documents from before Vatican Council II don't matter.....HUH????????

The decrees that follow are these.....among others....
[quote name='SC #115']Great importance is to be attached to the teaching and practice of music in seminaries, in the novitiates and houses of study of religious of both sexes, and also in other Catholic institutions and schools. To impart this instruction, teachers are to be carefully trained and put in charge of the teaching of sacred music.

It is desirable also to found higher institutes of sacred music whenever this can be done.

Composers and singers, especially boys, must also be given a genuine liturgical training.[/quote]

[quote name='SC #120']In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things.

But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.[/quote]

The GIRM and Sacrosanctum Concilium assume that the preceding documents will be adhered to and the definitions which were put forth previously. So, for example where there is mention of stringed instruments, that doesn't allow for guitars, but rather supports the use of smaller stringed instruments which can be played with a bow.

Also, in a Church that has been around for 2000+ years, 40 years does NOT compile longstanding usage, when the other instruments such as the pipe organ and the smaller stringed instruments that can be played with a bow have been used for centuries.

When this is put in context with the documentation, logic follows that the Church is clearly speaking and it is the "personalism" of the current members of the Church which are innovative and not in keeping with Article 22 no. 3 of Sacrosanctum Concilium among other prescriptions.

[Norseman82]

OK, here is another question: how do you "render" and instrument "apt"? I'm a little confused, as instrumentation is not an area of liturgy that I've delved into too deeply...

[Cam42]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1093580' date='Oct 16 2006, 10:53 PM']
OK, here is another question: how do you "render" and instrument "apt"? I'm a little confused, as instrumentation is not an area of liturgy that I've delved into too deeply...
[/quote]

We don't....the Church does. She will do that by definiton.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
Ummm, hughey......

I only asked Michael to sign up. The rest of my post was directed to you, unless otherwise noted.
[/quote]
I understand. I just thought I should clarify before we started beating up on Michael. He really shouldn't be criticized for something I said, regardless of his presence on the baord.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
Since pianos are condemned, I would hope that his comment supports what I posted. I have posted it multiple times. Tra Le Sollectudini #19.
[/quote]
Hope is a good thing to have.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
Are you assuming that "the likes of me" are not educated enough to hold a conversation? Are you assuming that I am simply sitting in a cave and don't do anything for my parish? Are you assuming that I am not busy with apostolic works? Those are some pretty big assumptions!!!!
[/quote]
Those are some pretty big assumptions for you to give me. I never said a single one of those things...

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
Are you saying that people who come here and catechize are wasting their time? I strongly suggest that you recant this, you are going to offend many more people than just me.....You are sitting here debating with me....and last time I checked, you don't know me.....however, I look at this site as a means of projecting the knowledge that I have of the Church and as an apologetics tool. I am sure that many more people who come here feel the same way.
[/quote]
...nor did I say any of THOSE things.
1. I don't need to recant anything I didn't say.
2. I never claimed to know you.
3. I'm happy to know phatmass pleases you.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
What does Canon Law have to do with Liturgical sensiblities? They are mutually exclusive, ON PURPOSE. There is Canon Law and Liturgical Law. I would hope, though, that someone with his advanced degrees would support the Liturgical Law.
[/quote]
I was hoping you would make that connection.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
That is great for Michael. Then he and I have the same degrees. Whoo Hoo. And my dismissal of him is based upon your caracature of him. Based upon your view of him, he doesn't follow the documentation of the Church. Any Liturgist worth his salt would recognize Tra Le Sollectudini, etc. and follow their directives.
[/quote]
Well, don't let me fool you. My 'caracature' of Michael is nothing close to who or what he really is. He is a brilliant musician and I do believe that most would love him. (There are some that will just never be pleased.)

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
I don't know him, but I also don't know his opinion, unless you are giving it for him in an authentic manner, then yes, I don't trust him.
[/quote]
I can't authentically give you his opinion as our conversation was but a mere 10 minutes. Besides, I do believe that only he could authentically give you his opinion on this matter and others.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
Why don't you show me where my defense of right thinking of the Liturgy fails and I will relent. Until then, I will stand by the teachings of the Church and I will stand by the posts that I have made.
[/quote]
I will in the future. In the present time I do not have resources I am comfortable using. Soon enough...

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
Because regardless of what you have been exposed to, the teachings and documentation of the Church have not changed and are very clear.
[/quote]
Oh okay. Lucky me.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093573' date='Oct 16 2006, 10:41 PM']
Also, in a Church that has been around for 2000+ years, 40 years does NOT compile longstanding usage, when the other instruments such as the pipe organ and the smaller stringed instruments that can be played with a bow have been used for centuries.

When this is put in context with the documentation, logic follows that the Church is clearly speaking and it is the "personalism" of the current members of the Church which are innovative and not in keeping with Article 22 no. 3 of Sacrosanctum Concilium among other prescriptions.
[/quote]
[quote]Even if it is a matter of non-infallible or prudential judgment, we are called to follow the legislation of the Church. We don't live in the historical Church, but rather we live in the current Church. We should take to heart those things which pertain to TODAY in matters of prudence and right thinking.[/quote]It's probably just me, (I'm infatuated with my own biased opinion), but I thought this funnier than shinobi.

Edited October 17, 2006 by Anomaly

[Cam42]

This is precisely what happens when one takes two unrelated statements and puts them together.

In the first, I am making a statement about the actions of the members of the Church with no magisterial authority.

In the second, I am making a statement about the judgment of the Pope in regard to the faithful.

This ridiculous claim is like posting that Cam said the sky is gray, on a rainy day. But then in another post Cam was talking about "Blue Skies Again," the song.


[quote name='hughey']I never said a single one of those things...[/quote]
No, you didn't but you assumed them.

[quote name='hughey']...nor did I say any of THOSE things.
1. I don't need to recant anything I didn't say.
2. I never claimed to know you.
3. I'm happy to know phatmass pleases you.[/quote]
Again you assumed them, not only in my case but also of the others who post here.

[quote name='hughey']I was hoping you would make that connection.[/quote]
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttt......I am sure that is what you meant when you posted that about your pastor. I made that connection years ago and made a similar post about it over a year ago.

[quote name='hughey']He is a brilliant musician and I do believe that most would love him. (There are some that will just never be pleased.)[/quote]

I don't doubt that he is a good musician. And if he is participating in abuses of the Mass, then you are correct, I will never be pleased. (Please don't patronize me and say that this was not aimed at me by saying "There are some....")

[quote name='hughey']I will in the future. In the present time I do not have resources I am comfortable using. Soon enough...[/quote]

Good luck with that....people have been trying for a long time and nobody, even hot stuff (whose been debating this with me for over 10 years) has been able to disprove this position.

Also if you are going to tote out that ICEL document from 1978, don't bother. It has been proven to be riddled with errors and this is why the Vatican has called for major reforms in the Liturgy in the English speaking world (as well as other places). There is a reason that the bishops must now go through the Holy See and get the [i]recognitio[/i] of the Vatican as opposed to simply going through ICEL in years past.

[Cam42]

For those who think that the previous documents on Sacred Music are simply old fashioned and/or outdated, here is what Pope John Paul II had to say on the subject:

[quote name='On Sacred Music #1']Moved by the lively desire "of maintaining and of promoting decorum in the House of God", my predecessor Saint Pius X one hundred years ago issued the motu proprio Tra le sollecitudini, which had as its object the renovation of sacred music in acts of worship. [b]With it he intended to offer to the Church concrete directions in that vital sector of the Liturgy, presenting her "a kind of juridical code of sacred music".[/b][/quote]

[quote name='On Sacred Music #2'][u]This beginning is taken up again by the Ecumenical Council Vatican II in Chapter 6 of the constitution on the sacred Liturgy, [b]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/b][/u], where the ecclesial function of sacred music is recalled with clarity: "The musical tradition of all the Church constitutes a patrimony of inestimable value, which exceeds that of other expressions of art, especially by the fact that sacred song, united to words, is a necessary and integral part of the solemn Liturgy"...[/quote]

[quote name='On Sacred Music #4 no.3']The reform effected by Saint Pius X had specifically in view the purification of Church music from the contamination of profane theatrical music, which in many countries had polluted liturgical music repertoire and praxis. [b][i][u]This is also to be considered attentively in our times, as I have placed in evidence in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia: that not all expressions of the figurative arts and of music are capable "of adequately expressing the Mystery worshipped in the fullness of the Church's faith". As a consequence, not all musical forms can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.[/u][/i][/b][/quote]

[quote name='OSM #8 no.1'][i]The importance of preserving and increasing the age-old patrimony of the Church[/i] leads to taking up in particular a specific exhortation of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium: "Scholae cantorum are to be zealously promoted, especially around cathedral churches". [b]In its turn, the Instruction Musicam sacram specifies the ministerial task of the schola: "Worthy of particular attention, for the liturgical service that unfolds, is the choir or cappella musicale or schola cantorum.[/b] [u]Following the conciliar norms regarding liturgical reform, its task has become of still greater remark and importance: it must, indeed, attend to the exact execution of those parts proper to itself, according to the various types of songs, and accommodate active participation of the faithful in song. Therefore [...] there is and is to be promoted with special care, in cathedrals and other large churches, in seminaries and religious houses of studies, a choir or cappella musicale or schola cantorum".[/u] The task of the schola has not decreased: it indeed develops in the assembly the role of guide and support and, at certain moments of the Liturgy, has its own specific role.[/quote]

[quote name='OSM #9 no.2']In such formational works, a special role develops for schools of sacred music, which Saint Pius X exhorted to be maintained and promoted, and which the Second Vatican Council recommends to be formed where possible. A concrete fruit of the reform of Saint Pius X was the erection in Rome, in 1911, eight years after the motu proprio, of the "Pontifical Academy of Sacred Music", afterward becoming the "Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music". [b][u]Near this now almost-centenary academic institution, which has rendered and still renders a specialized service to the Church,[/u][/b] there are many other schools founded in individual Churches, which deserve to be supported and developed for an ever better understanding and execution of good liturgical music.[/quote]

[quote name='OSM #15 no.1'][u]I desire that the centenary commemoration of the motu proprio Tra le sollecitudini,[/u] by the intercession of its sainted Author, united with that of Saint Cecilia, patroness of sacred music, [u]be of encouragement and stimulus for as many as concern themselves with this important aspect of liturgical celebrations.[/u] May those devoted to sacred music, dedicating themselves with renewed momentum to a matter of such vital import, contribute to the maturing of the spiritual life of the People of God.[/quote]

So, looking at what Pope John Paul II had to say about Tra Le Sollectuidini in 2004, I would say that we are still to hold it as a defining document of Liturgical reform and continuing education. It is through this light of understanding from the previous pontiff that I take inspiration. This echoes everything previously that I had been taught and supports the positions that I have taken to date about the care and seriousness needed to be given toward Sacred Music in the Liturgical life of the Church.

The document:[url="http://www.adoremus.org/Chirograph-SacredMusic.html"]Chirograph: On Sacred Music[/url]

[Cam42]

I would also strongly suggest that anyone intested in this issue should read [url="http://www.musicasacra.com/pdf/chron.pdf"]A Chronicle of the Reform: Catholic Music in the 20th Century[/url] by Mons. Richard Schuler.

It does a masterful job of explaining what I have been trying to get across for a very long time.

[quote name='Chronicle of Reform']If there was one single difficulty that surfaced as the main problem in this country in implementing fully the orders of the Church, it would be the lack of professional training of those who were trying to fulfill the decrees. This was caused chiefly by the lack of professional schools of music that taught anything about Catholic church music and the reluctance of church authorities to put adequate finances into the liturgical music programs.[/quote]

[quote name='CR']In 1951, Pope Pius XII beatified Pope Pius X, and in 1954, he declared him to be a saint of the Church. These events were widely celebrated by church musicians and gave a great impulse to efforts to implement the motu proprio of Pius X. But the most important event of the entire post-war period was the publication of the encyclical, Musicae sacrae disciplina, by Pope Pius XII, December 25, 1955. The first time a pope turned his attention in a major encyclical to questions of liturgical music, this document came in a logical and planned line of development that began with Pope Pius X’s motu proprio of 1903 and was prepared for by the encyclical, Mediator Dei, of 1947. In adding yet another stone to the edifice of reform, Pius XII did not sound the negative note of excising decay that many thought they found in the motu proprio of Pius X. It is true that what is sensual and unchaste, illicit and extravagant and irreverent must be eliminated. But now the Holy See wished us rather to cultivate the great, the beautiful and the artistic. The valuable research of musicologists had opened the treasures of the past and new compositions of spiritual and artistic merit had appeared to adorn the liturgy.[/quote]

[quote name='CR']On September 3, 1958, the feast of Saint Pius X, the Sacred Congregation of Rites made specific the more general directions of the encyclical with the instruction, De musica sacra etsacra liturgia. It was based solidly on the motu prop rio, Tra le sollecitudini of Pius X, the apostolic constitution, Divini cultus of Pius XI, the encyclical, Mediator Dei of Pius XII, and the encyclical, Musicae sacrae disciplina. It stated clearly a well organized code of church music legislation.[/quote]

[quote name='CR']What the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council as well as the various instructions that followed after the council had to say on sacred music could be found almost in detail in the 1958 instruction.[/quote]

There is more, but this is a taste. It is a great read from one of the great musicologists of our generation.

[stbernardLT]

In the back of the Girm under section 393. The US Bishops made an adaptation that allows other wind, string, and percussion instruments according to the longstanding local usage. These instruments must be rendered apt.

I know the response is that they have told which instruments are aloowed, but I can't understand why they would make ADAPTATIONS if these were instruments that were already allowed.

That is why I think it is meant to generalize what instruments are allowed in the US.

[Cam42]

[url="http://www.adoremus.org/0703Soloists.html"]Musicians in Catholic Worship - Part I[/url]
[url="http://www.adoremus.org/0903Organists.html"]Musicians in Catholic Worship ­ Part II[/url]
[url="http://www.adoremus.org/1003Music.html"]Musicians in Catholic Worship ­ III[/url]

Here are a series of articles I have posted before on Music in the Liturgy written by Lucy Carroll. She is also one of the leading musicologists of our day.

It is more support for right thinking when it comes to the Liturgy and the Church's musical worship.

[quote name='stbernardLT' post='1094114' date='Oct 17 2006, 02:47 PM']
In the back of the Girm under section 393. The US Bishops made an adaptation that allows other wind, string, and percussion instruments according to the longstanding local usage. These instruments must be rendered apt.

I know the response is that they have told which instruments are aloowed, but I can't understand why they would make ADAPTATIONS if these were instruments that were already allowed.

That is why I think it is meant to generalize what instruments are allowed in the US.
[/quote]

Where is the proof for that statement? And again 40 years doesn't equate to longstanding usage. We must remember that the GIRM assumes previous documentation and even quotes the documents that I am citing.

And just who renders these instruments apt? It is the bishops' conference with the RECOGNITIO of the Holy See. To my knowledge, the guitar has never been rendered apt. The instruments that I have cited have been. Every single one I have listed.

So, I believe that the adaptations that you are assuming are too broad. Unless you can show proof as to what you are talking about through documentation from the Church, this is simply and opinion which cannot hold any credence.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093821' date='Oct 17 2006, 08:32 AM']
This is precisely what happens when one takes two unrelated statements and puts them together.

In the first, I am making a statement about the actions of the members of the Church with no magisterial authority.

In the second, I am making a statement about the judgment of the Pope in regard to the faithful.

This ridiculous claim is like posting that Cam said the sky is gray, on a rainy day. But then in another post Cam was talking about "Blue Skies Again," the song.
[/quote]
I thought it was pretty funny, too.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093821' date='Oct 17 2006, 08:32 AM']
No, you didn't but you assumed them.
[/quote]
Correction. You assumed that I assumed them. Never did I assume that you were unintelligent, couldn't hold a conversation, lived in a cave, did nothing for your parish, etc. In fact, anyone that is looking in on this is probably laughing almost as hard as I am. These are some pretty far-fetched assumptions on YOUR part. Try not to get emotional, okay?

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093821' date='Oct 17 2006, 08:32 AM']
Again you assumed them, not only in my case but also of the others who post here.
[/quote]
Did I? No. Actually, I didn't. This is another assumption on your part. Two strikes for you.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093821' date='Oct 17 2006, 08:32 AM']
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttt......I am sure that is what you meant when you posted that about your pastor. I made that connection years ago and made a similar post about it over a year ago.
[/quote]
You know, you're not very nice at all. You sit here accusing me of calling you an unintelligent, time-wasting caveman. Then what do you do? You call ME stupid. Good going.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093821' date='Oct 17 2006, 08:32 AM']
I don't doubt that he is a good musician. And if he is participating in abuses of the Mass, then you are correct, I will never be pleased. (Please don't patronize me and say that this was not aimed at me by saying "There are some....")
[/quote]
I never said it wasn't aimed at you. :

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093821' date='Oct 17 2006, 08:32 AM']
Good luck with that....people have been trying for a long time and nobody, even hot stuff (whose been debating this with me for over 10 years) has been able to disprove this position.

Also if you are going to tote out that ICEL document from 1978, don't bother. It has been proven to be riddled with errors and this is why the Vatican has called for major reforms in the Liturgy in the English speaking world (as well as other places). There is a reason that the bishops must now go through the Holy See and get the [i]recognitio[/i] of the Vatican as opposed to simply going through ICEL in years past.
[/quote]
You certainly are full of yourself, aren't you?

[Cam42]

[quote]Correction. You assumed that I assumed them. Never did I assume that you were unintelligent, couldn't hold a conversation, lived in a cave, did nothing for your parish, etc. In fact, anyone that is looking in on this is probably laughing almost as hard as I am. These are some pretty far-fetched assumptions on YOUR part. Try not to get emotional, okay?[/quote]

I am hardly emotional. You are the one who is all bent out of shape over me showing what the Church actually says. Sorry for promoting right thinking according to the Church's teaching. And if I have assumed anything, then it is simply in retort to assumptions that you have made previously. (Pssttt...a balk can't be a strike)

[quote]Did I?[/quote]
Yes, actually you did. Enough of that though......moving on.....

[quote]You know, you're a real jerk. You sit here accusing me of calling you an unintelligent, time-wasting caveman. Then what do you do? You call ME stupid. Good going.[/quote]
Care to quote me on those things you are accusing me of? Where have I called you stupid? I have not, nor have I made any allusion at any time that you are. I don't think you are stupid at all.

[quote]You certainly are full of yourself, aren't you?[/quote]
No, I am not. I am simply stating what the Church teaches. At that point, I am applying logic, as well as deductive and inductive reasoning to the teachings of the Church to provide a balanced and accurate view. The view is accurate, because I can point to citation and documentation which supports the position. Something I have asked you to do, but have as yet to provide. I will wait patiently though. I've been waiting for over a year for anyone to show me solid doucmentation which refutes my position. The fact of the matter is that the Church's position is clear and it is right thinking. I am simply supporting the Church, something I have always done on this site.

Notice that I am not the one who first resorted to name calling and childish action. That was you. You started this by calling me nuts. If you would like to call a truce, then fine, I will accept, but if you don't I will continue to show documentation and citation and offer more and more articles which support my position.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1094138' date='Oct 17 2006, 03:22 PM']
I am hardly emotional. You are the one who is all bent out of shape over me showing what the Church actually says. Sorry for promoting right thinking according to the Church's teaching. And if I have assumed anything, then it is simply in retort to assumptions that you have made previously. (Pssttt...a balk can't be a strike)
Yes, actually you did. Enough of that though......moving on.....
Care to quote me on those things you are accusing me of? Where have I called you stupid? I have not, nor have I made any allusion at any time that you are. I don't think you are stupid at all.
No, I am not. I am simply stating what the Church teaches. At that point, I am applying logic, as well as deductive and inductive reasoning to the teachings of the Church to provide a balanced and accurate view. The view is accurate, because I can point to citation and documentation which supports the position. Something I have asked you to do, but have as yet to provide. I will wait patiently though.
[/quote]
Are you kidding right now? You post something which could imply that I am stupid but I, the one that posted NOTHING that could lead one to assume that I have assumed you are an unintelligent, time-wasting caveman, am accused quite strongly of assuming things. RIGHT. That makes a load of sense! Which is prolly why you don't want to talk about it, huh?

You know.. if one POSTS something about another mentioning the words caveman, unintelligent, unable to hold a conversation, etc, THEN I might see a reason to place assumptions on that person. However, I said none of this. So then you do appear to be emotional or at least defensive. I have a feeling someone has accused you of these things before.

[Lil Red]

alrighty everyone - take a deep breath and chill out. let's move past the accusations and onto the actual topic, okay? i'd hate to edit and moderate this topic