Projectors During Liturgy?

[cmotherofpirl]

Explain to me why these documents "Music in Catholic Worship" and "Liturgical Music Today" put out by the USCCB are not authoritative if they differ from your document. They are signed off by the US bishops, are they not?

[Cam42]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1095096' date='Oct 18 2006, 03:37 PM']
Explain to me why these documents "Music in Catholic Worship" and "Liturgical Music Today" put out by the USCCB are not authoritative if they differ from your document. They are signed off by the US bishops, are they not?
[/quote]

[quote name='A Chronicle of Reform']The seventies proved to be the decade of the piccolomnini, the little men. Church music became the domain of the “do-it-yourself’ composer and performer. [b]In the name of actuosa participatio, guitar players, various combos, folk-singers and even grade school children undertook to write and perform music for church, providing both texts and notes.[/b] That such ineptitude and ignorance, albeit sincere, could have taken hold of a serious and sacred sector of life, the worship of God, can only be explained by reference to the direction given from the central authority in the country. [b]The phenomenon was witnessed in all parts of the country; it came from a common source. That source was the Music Advisory Board of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy. The group acted chiefly through the documents issued in its name: “The Place of Music in Eucharistic Celebrations;” and [u]“Music in Catholic Worship,”[/u] which was released in 1972.[/b]

On September 5, 1970, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship published its third instruction on the orderly implementation of the constitution on the sacred liturgy of the Second Vatican Council. Entitled Liturgicae instaurationes, it put an end to experimentation in liturgical matters and called for the careful fulfillment of the instructions given by the council and the curial documents that followed. The decrees contained in Musicam sacram of 1967 are repeated, and abuses are ordered to be eliminated. Only a passing reference to this significant document from Rome occurs in “Music in Catholic Worship.” Just as with Musicam sacram, this Roman instruction was ignored in the United States, and the abuses continued to grow. There is little wonder that the laity objected to many innovations made in the name of the council and the reform, because their very right to have the liturgical reform carried out properly and orderly was being violated. The instruction of 1972 clearly stated that “the priest should keep in mind that, by imposing his own personal restoration of sacred rites, he is offending the rights of the faithful and is introducing individualism and idiosyncrasy into celebrations which belong to the whole Church.[/quote]

[quote name='A Chronicle of Reform']One may ask how such a body as the Music Advisory Board could impose its opinions on the musicians and clergy of the United States. What was their legal foundation? The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy says: “It is desirable that the competent ecclesiastical authority, mentioned in article 22, set up a liturgical commission, to be assisted by experts in liturgical sciences, sacred music, art and pastoral practice.” Advisory boards were set up in other areas besides music. Their capacity was seen as exclusively advisory to the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy.[/quote]

[quote name='A Chronicle of Reform']With the document now enjoying an “official” position, taken by some to be even legislative and authoritative and equal if not surpassing Roman legislation, the disintegration of church music across the country began in earnest. “Beat” music, so called folk-music, combos, jazz and rock groups, country Western and ballads became the accepted music for parish liturgies, weddings, graduations and even ordination. The Catholic and the secular press have recorded the aberrations. With the introduction of profane and trivial compositions and performances, good music became ever more disused, as choirs were disbanded and even prohibited. Seminaries, novitiates and colleges led the way, and little official effort was expanded to curtail it. In some dioceses the bishops did speak up forcefully against abuses. Writers in Catholic periodicals generally backed the revolution, but others expressed caution and concern. As music for “special groups,” originally intended for college and high school students, came to mean music for elementary pupils too, so that they could participate more fully, some liturgists promoted the writing of music by grade school children for performance at their Masses.[/quote]

The main reason that I take issue, as is pointed out in [url="http://www.musicasacra.com/pdf/chron.pdf"]A Chronicle of Reform[/url], is that the purpose of the Committee that produced these documents was stepping out of bounds by making the assumptions that they did. They were to be an advisory committee only, however, they imposed their will on the Church in America, as is also shown the advisory documents are falsely promoted to be authoritative, which they are not, nor were they ever intended to be.

It is interesting to note also that these documents have never been voted on by the Bishops' Committee. ([url="http://www.musicasacra.com/"]SOURCE[/url])

So, the answer to have they been signed off, by the Bishops' Committee, is no. They have not been signed off on.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1095135' date='Oct 18 2006, 06:02 PM']
The main reason that I take issue, as is pointed out in [url="http://www.musicasacra.com/pdf/chron.pdf"]A Chronicle of Reform[/url], is that the purpose of the Committee that produced these documents was stepping out of bounds by making the assumptions that they did. They were to be an advisory committee only, however, they imposed their will on the Church in America, as is also shown the advisory documents are falsely promoted to be authoritative, which they are not, nor were they ever intended to be.

It is interesting to note also that these documents have never been voted on by the Bishops' Committee. ([url="http://www.musicasacra.com/"]SOURCE[/url])

So, the answer to have they been signed off, by the Bishops' Committee, is no. They have not been signed off on.
[/quote]
Then why does the USCCB list them on their website or sell them? Obviously they consider them offical documents whether have been signed off on or not. The opinion of the CMMA members however laudable does not seem adequate to overide a document specifically posted on USCCB.org and promulgated by and quoted by them.

[Lil Red]

well, the USCCB does do some really strange things.

[Cam42]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1095229' date='Oct 18 2006, 05:12 PM']
Then why does the USCCB list them on their website or sell them? Obviously they consider them offical documents whether have been signed off on or not. The opinion of the CMMA members however laudable does not seem adequate to overide a document specifically posted on USCCB.org and promulgated by and quoted by them.
[/quote]

So, everything on the USCCB website is without error? I don't think so. Show me where the bishops' have granted the advisory committee more than an advisory role, and I will relent. However, I don't see anything to that end.

How does an advisory body gain control without ratification to promote their own documentation without ratification?

Do we simply accept this document without due diligence? Again, I ask you for the [i]RECOGNITIO[/i]. When you show me where it has 1) been ratified by the BCL and 2) gained approval from Rome, I will accept the document as binding.

[Norseman82]

Well, it appears to me that even Cardinals are in violation, since I've been to two masses celebrated by Cardinal George for local Festivals of Faith (an official archdiocesan event), and projectors were used to transmit what was going on in the sanctuary and the procession to those who did not have a good view.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1095371' date='Oct 18 2006, 09:54 PM']
So, everything on the USCCB website is without error? I don't think so. Show me where the bishops' have granted the advisory committee more than an advisory role, and I will relent. However, I don't see anything to that end.

How does an advisory body gain control without ratification to promote their own documentation without ratification?

Do we simply accept this document without due diligence? Again, I ask you for the [i]RECOGNITIO[/i]. When you show me where it has 1) been ratified by the BCL and 2) gained approval from Rome, I will accept the document as binding.
[/quote]


I actually think this one works the other way. We may not like what the documents say or agree with it BUT the document is listed and sold on the USCCB.org website as statements of the Church, and I have seem them quoted by dioceses. The burden of proof is on you to show me that it is not binding and part of the ordinary magisterial teaching of the Church. There are 7 bishops, 1 archbishop, and 3 cardinals on that liturgical committee and if they didn't approve of the document I doubt if it would still be there.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1095371' date='Oct 18 2006, 08:54 PM']
How does an advisory body gain control without ratification to promote their own documentation without ratification?
[/quote]

It's called the "I'm a bureaucrat with a power trip and this is my cubicle and I'm going to exercise and flaunt my control over it" syndrome.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1095385' date='Oct 18 2006, 10:20 PM']
I actually think this one works the other way. We may not like what the documents say or agree with it BUT the document is listed and sold on the USCCB.org website as statements of the Church, and I have seem them quoted by dioceses. The burden of proof is on you to show me that it is not binding and part of the ordinary magisterial teaching of the Church. There are 7 bishops, 1 archbishop, and 3 cardinals on that liturgical committee and if they didn't approve of the document I doubt if it would still be there.
[/quote]

and on further reading the Committee on Liturgy posted this notice in their newsletter:


The Music and Liturgy Subcommittee met on May 19, 2006 in Washington D.C. to discuss the revision of Music and Catholic Worship and Liturgical Music Today, two foundational documents on the subject of music and the sacred liturgy. TheCommittee decided to begin this process by seeking the advice of
organizations and groups dealing with questions of music and the liturgy. A consultation has been planned for October 9, 2006 in Chicago, Illinois. Organizations interested in sending a representative to this consultation are invited to post an e-mail indicating their interest to bclmusic@usccb.org before August 1, 2006...

Notice they call them foundational documents. These documents are both over 20 years old, which is ample time up to now for the bishops to decide to alter or delete them, another indication they have some authority on their respective subjects.

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1093997' date='Oct 17 2006, 12:21 PM']
I dunno... sometimes flipping through a missalette can be just as distracting. My biggest gripe about projection systems is my personal pet peeve when the person running the thing doesn't flip to the next slide on time. But other than that, they can be tastefully done and I think a new church building could incorporate the system in a way that would fit with the architecture. There isn't any use for it during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, but I think it would be awesome if more priests incorporated sermon notes and broke down the meaning of Scripture and why that OT passage relates to the NT and the Gospel. I feel like very few Catholics are empowered with an understanding of Scripture, even parishes pastored by solid, orthodox priests (that's a tangent, but talking about projects got me thinking about how they're used in sermons by Protestant pastors).

Organs, by the way, used to be associated with the sinful lifestyles portrayed in oprahs. Now we think they're the musical instrument equivalent of Jesus. It all depends on your perspective
[/quote]

Missal=Cool...Projector=Not Cool.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Rick777

[Cam42]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1095385' date='Oct 18 2006, 08:20 PM']
I actually think this one works the other way. We may not like what the documents say or agree with it BUT the document is listed and sold on the USCCB.org website as statements of the Church, and I have seem them quoted by dioceses. The burden of proof is on you to show me that it is not binding and part of the ordinary magisterial teaching of the Church. There are 7 bishops, 1 archbishop, and 3 cardinals on that liturgical committee and if they didn't approve of the document I doubt if it would still be there.
[/quote]

No, not really. The impotice is that the advisory committee had no authority to promote that document without ratification. It was assumed to be of value by the liturgists of the time, as I have shown through documented historical account. The USCCB has never ratified nor have they ever held them to be voted upon.

Again, I ask how is that a Magisterial teaching? There is no way that this would fall into that category. It is certainly not a universal Magisterial teaching because it would only apply to the US. Also, I am certain that this document has been called into question on a formal level, as ICEL and the advisory committee had to undergo substantial change several years ago. I will do the proper research, you can count on that I will have commentary on that soon. (I have an email in to a friend of mine who works at the Vatican.)

I don't doubt that it would be there either, but the bishops don't control everything that goes on in their conference. There are over 50 committees. Again, I ask to see the vote which allowed for the ratification of the document.

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1095382' date='Oct 18 2006, 08:18 PM']
Well, it appears to me that even Cardinals are in violation, since I've been to two masses celebrated by Cardinal George for local Festivals of Faith (an official archdiocesan event), and projectors were used to transmit what was going on in the sanctuary and the procession to those who did not have a good view.
[/quote]

No, if they are broadcast via closed circut tv, then it is allowable, per the quote I listed earlier dealing with television broadcasting.

[Cam42]

It has also been announced that the document "Music in Catholic Worship" is going to be revised. This was first announced in the May-June 2006 issue of the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy (BCL) Newsletter. It was scheduled for October 9, 2006. The attitude of "consultation" lends to the fact that this document is not the work of the bishops' but rather of a subcommittee. Again, this begs the question of authority.

[url="http://www.musicasacra.com/2006/08/cmaa-and-us-bishops-music-and-liturgy.html"]SOURCE[/url]

Is it any wonder at all that the documents in question are at direct odds with [url="http://www.musicasacra.com/publications/sacredmusic/pdf/liturgy&music.pdf"]Liturgy and Church Music[/url] by Pope Benedict XVI. If one takes the time to read this and then takes the time to read [url="http://www.musicasacra.com/pdf/chron.pdf"]A Chronicle of Reform: Catholic Music in the 20th Century[/url], one will see amazing similiarites and an almost synthesis of thought.

How can one reconcile an advisory document from and advisory committee for the BCL which is in many places in direct odds with accepted Catholic thought and works from Pope Benedict XVI and Monsignor Richard Schuler?

Another great article on the issue is [url="http://www.musicasacra.com/publications/sacredmusic/pdf/ideology.pdf"]Ideology and Liturgy[/url] by Rev. Robert Skeris. Those of you who are Christendom College fans will recognize Fr. Skeris.

[cmotherofpirl]

I was the one who posted the annouucement that it was going to be reviewed in my post.

It is on the offical website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as a "foundational document" so until I hear otherwise from one of the good bishops or cardinals that it is not authoritative, I will have to assume it is. What do you always say about picking and choosing???

[Norseman82]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1093997' date='Oct 17 2006, 01:21 PM']
Organs, by the way, used to be associated with the sinful lifestyles portrayed in oprahs. [/quote]

I don't think she was on the air way back then......

[img]http://www.oprah-winfrey.com/oprah.jpg[/img]

[Cam42]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1095550' date='Oct 18 2006, 10:58 PM']
I was the one who posted the annouucement that it was going to be reviewed in my post.

It is on the offical website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as a "foundational document" so until I hear otherwise from one of the good bishops or cardinals that it is not authoritative, I will have to assume it is. What do you always say about picking and choosing???
[/quote]

I am not picking and choosing anything. I am simply stating that this document is not authoritiative. There is nothing that says that this is a foundational document. If the document is not authoratative then there is nothing binding about it.

Also, how do you reconcile the inconsistnencies within the document in regard to Sacrosanctum Concilium and the subsequent teachings from Pope Paul VI?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1094125' date='Oct 17 2006, 05:00 PM']
We don't go to Mass to read the Word of God, we go to hear [ as in proclaimed] it. Missals are useful for music, but anyone who goes to Mass for more than several weeks should have the parts of the Mass down pat and not be reading anything.
[/quote]

However, one does retain more by reading and listening than by listening alone. Plus, you can continue to meditate on the readings afterwards if you have them in front of you.

Besides, half the time the OT and NT readings are difficult to hear and I have rarely attended a Mass where I could understand the Psalm without reading it.

[LuchaporElRey21]

Besides this pre-Vatican II document someone dug up, what does Vatican II have to say about this, if anything? If such a document exists, then we should take it into equal or higher consideration than the previous.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LuchaporElRey21' post='1101105' date='Oct 25 2006, 05:23 PM']
Besides this pre-Vatican II document someone dug up, what does Vatican II have to say about this, if anything? If such a document exists, then we should take it into equal or higher consideration than the previous.
[/quote]

Show me where Vatican Council II automatically abbrogates all of the teaching and documentation previous to the Council. The answer to that challenge is that you can't.

The Council ACTUALLY quotes and refers to these documents......get over the whole, it must not count, because Vatican II happened, attitude. Vatican II did nothing to stop the documents, actually it is enhancing the documentation.....I have shown this over and over and over and over......why do people not understand this.....?

[LuchaporElRey21]

Meow, dude. Chill. I didn't know that because I never learned it in my catechetics classes. But now I am educated. Sorry for making you feel like Captain Obvious.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LuchaporElRey21' post='1101853' date='Oct 26 2006, 04:18 PM']
Meow, dude. Chill. I didn't know that because I never learned it in my catechetics classes. But now I am educated. Sorry for making you feel like Captain Obvious.
[/quote]

It is a little disturbing to have to continually repeat myself. There is an air around here sometimes that it is feeling over form when it comes to the teachings and disciplines of the Catholic Church.

All you had to do was read the thread and you'd see what my point was.