Evangelization Efforts

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='zalzan' timestamp='1302717703' post='2228225']
Nihil,

I think the way our discussion has been going is a key reason why Catholic evangelism is virtually nonexistent today. I have encountered too many times outright hostility toward contemporary liturgical and spiritual music, which flies in the face of actual Church Teaching..Dogmatic Teaching in fact. As long as people continue to try and hold congregations hostage musically, our evangelism will suffer.

I prefer to rest with Church Teaching and promote newer, more relevant forms of singing at Mass while at the same time remaining open to incorporating older forms.
[/quote]
Your understanding of Church teaching is flawed and places undue emphasis on current trends which are inappropriate and not suited for the Liturgy.

[zalzan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302717629' post='2228223']
From the document you yourself quoted earlier:


Therefore [b]sacred music[/b] 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.


114. The treasure of [b]sacred music[/b] is to be preserved and fostered with great care. Choirs must be diligently promoted, especially in cathedral churches; but bishops and other pastors of souls must be at pains to ensure that, whenever the sacred action is to be celebrated with song, the whole body of the faithful may be able to contribute that active participation which is rightly theirs, as laid down in Art. 28 and 30.


116. The Church acknowledges [b]Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman Liturgy[/b]: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given [b]pride of place[/b] in liturgical services.

But other kinds of [b]sacred music[/b], especially [b]polyphony[/b] , are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.




Then, a personal favourite of mine, Tra le sollecitudini:
I'm going to just docu-dump this whole thing, because it's massively important and I don't want to exclude anything from it.
Every Catholic should read this document.





Instruction on Sacred Music

I General principles
1. Sacred music, being a complementary part of the solemn liturgy, participates in the general scope of the liturgy, which is the glory of God and the sanctification and edification of the faithful. It contributes to the decorum and the splendor of the ecclesiastical ceremonies, and since its principal office is to clothe with suitable melody the liturgical text proposed for the understanding of the faithful, its proper aim is to add greater efficacy to the text, in order that through it the faithful may be the more easily moved to devotion and better disposed for the reception of the fruits of grace belonging to the celebration of the most holy mysteries.

2. Sacred music should consequently possess, in the highest degree, the qualities proper to the liturgy, and in particular sanctity and goodness of form, which will spontaneously produce the final quality of universality.

It must be holy, and must, therefore, exclude all profanity not only in itself, but in the manner in which it is presented by those who execute it.

It must be true art, for otherwise it will be impossible for it to exercise on the minds of those who listen to it that efficacy which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her liturgy the art of musical sounds.

But it must, at the same time, be universal in the sense that while every nation is permitted to admit into its ecclesiastical compositions those special forms which may be said to constitute its native music, still these forms must be subordinated in such a manner to the general characteristics of sacred music that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them.

II. The different kinds of sacred music
3. These qualities are to be found, in the highest degree, in Gregorian Chant, which is, consequently the Chant proper to the Roman Church, the only chant she has inherited from the ancient fathers, which she has jealously guarded for centuries in her liturgical codices, which she directly proposes to the faithful as her own, which she prescribes exclusively for some parts of the liturgy, and which the most recent studies have so happily restored to their integrity and purity.

On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the suprememodel for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down thefollowing rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.

The ancient traditional Gregorian Chant must, therefore, in a large measure be restored to the functions of public worship, and the fact must be accepted by all that an ecclesiastical function loses none of its solemnity when accompanied by this music alone.

Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times.

4. The above-mentioned qualities are also possessed in an excellent degree by Classic Polyphony, especially of the Roman School, which reached its greatest perfection in the sixteenth century, owing to the works of Pierluigi da Palestrina, and continued subsequently to produce compositions of excellent quality from a liturgical and musical standpoint. Classic Polyphony agrees admirably with Gregorian Chant, the supreme model of all sacred music, and hence it has been found worthy of a place side by side with Gregorian Chant, in the more solemn functions of the Church, such as those of the Pontifical Chapel. This, too, must therefore be restored largely in ecclesiastical functions, especially in the more important basilicas, in cathedrals, and in the churches and chapels of seminaries and other ecclesiastical institutions in which the necessary means are usually not lacking.

5. The Church has always recognized and favored the progress of the arts, admitting to the service of religion everything good and beautiful discovered by genius in the course of ages -- always, however, with due regard to the liturgical laws. Consequently modern music is also admitted to the Church, since it, too, furnishes compositions of such excellence, sobriety and gravity, that they are in no way unworthy of the liturgical functions.

Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces.

6. Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears less suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship is the theatrical style, which was in the greatest vogue, especially in Italy, during the last century. This of its very nature is diametrically opposed to Gregorian Chant and classic polyphony, and therefore to the most important law of all good sacred music. Besides the intrinsic structure, the rhythm and what is known as the conventionalism of this style adapt themselves but badly to the requirements of true liturgical music.

III. The liturgical text
7. The language proper to the Roman Church is Latin. Hence it is forbidden to sing anything whatever in the vernacular in solemn liturgical functions -- much more to sing in the vernacular the variable or common parts of the Mass and Office.

8. As the texts that may be rendered in music, and the order in which they are to be rendered, are determined for every liturgical function, it is not lawful to confuse this order or to change the prescribed texts for others selected at will, or to omit them either entirely or even in part, unless when the rubrics allow that some versicles of the text be supplied with the organ, while these versicles are simply recited in the choir. However, it is permissible, according to the custom of the Roman Church, to sing a motet to the Blessed Sacrament after the Benedictus in a solemn Mass. It is also permitted, after the Offertory prescribed for the mass has been sung, to execute during the time that remains a brief motet to words approved by the Church.

9. The liturgical text must be sung as it is in the books, without alteration or inversion of the words, without undue repetition, without breaking syllables, and always in a manner intelligible to the faithful who listen.

IV. External form of the sacred compositions
10. The different parts of the mass and the Office must retain, even musically, that particular concept and form which ecclesiastical tradition has assigned to them, and which is admirably brought out by Gregorian Chant. The method of composing an introit, a gradual, an antiphon, a psalm, a hymn, a Gloria in excelsis, etc., must therefore be distinct from one another.

11. In particular the following rules are to be observed:

(a) The Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, etc., of the Mass must preserve the unity of composition proper to the text. It is not lawful, therefore, to compose them in separate movements, in such a way that each of these movements form a complete composition in itself, and be capable of being detached from the rest and substituted by another.

(b) In the office of Vespers it should be the rule to follow the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, which prescribes Gregorian Chant for the psalmody and permits figured music for the versicles of the Gloria Patri and the hymn.

It will nevertheless be lawful on greater solemnities to alternate the Gregorian Chant of the choir with the so called falsi-bordoni or with verses similarly composed in a proper manner.

It is also permissible occasionally to render single psalms in their entirety in music, provided the form proper to psalmody be preserved in such compositions; that is to say, provided the singers seem to be psalmodising among themselves, either with new motifs or with those taken from Gregorian Chant or based upon it.

The psalms known as di concerto are therefore forever excluded and prohibited.

© In the hymns of the Church the traditional form of the hymn is preserved. It is not lawful, therefore, to compose, for instance, a Tantum ergo in such wise that the first strophe presents a romanza, a cavatina, an adagio and the Genitori an allegro.

(d) The antiphons of the Vespers must be as a rule rendered with the Gregorian melody proper to each. Should they, however, in some special case be sung in figured music, they must never have either the form of a concert melody or the fullness of a motet or a cantata.

V. The singers
12. With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the altar and to the ministers, which must be always sung in Gregorian Chant, and without accompaniment of the organ, all the rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir of levites, and, therefore, singers in the church, even when they are laymen, are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical choir. Hence the music rendered by them must, at least for the greater part, retain the character of choral music.

By this it is not to be understood that solos are entirely excluded. But solo singing should never predominate to such an extent as to have the greater part of the liturgical chant executed in that manner; the solo phrase should have the character or hint of a melodic projection (spunto), and be strictly bound up with the rest of the choral composition.

13. On the same principle it follows that singers in church have a real liturgical office, and that therefore women, being incapable of exercising such office, cannot be admitted to form part of the choir. Whenever, then, it is desired to employ the acute voices of sopranos and contraltos, these parts must be taken by boys, according to the most ancient usage of the Church.

14. Finally, only men of known piety and probity of life are to be admitted to form part of the choir of a church, and these men should by their modest and devout bearing during the liturgical functions show that they are worthy of the holy office they exercise. It will also be fitting that singers while singing in church wear the ecclesiastical habit and surplice, and that they be hidden behind gratings when the choir is excessively open to the public gaze.

VI. Organ and instruments
15. Although the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music, music with the accompaniment of the organ is also permitted. In some special cases, within due limits and with proper safeguards, other instruments may be allowed, but never without the special permission of the Ordinary, according to prescriptions of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum.

16. As the singing should always have the principal place, the organ or other instruments should merely sustain and never oppress it.

17. It is not permitted to have the chant preceded by long preludes or to interrupt it with intermezzo pieces.

18. The sound of the organ as an accompaniment to the chant in preludes, interludes, and the like must be not only governed by the special nature of the instrument, but must participate in all the qualities proper to sacred music as above enumerated.

19. The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.

20. It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the placeprovided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ.

21. In processions outside the church the Ordinary may give permission for a band, provided no profane pieces be executed. It would be desirable in such cases that the band confine itself to accompanying some spiritual canticle sung in Latin or in the vernacular by the singers and the pious associations which take part in the procession.

VII. The length of the liturgical chant
22. It is not lawful to keep the priest at the altar waiting on account of the chant or the music for a length of time not allowed by the liturgy. According to the ecclesiastical prescriptions the Sanctus of the Mass should be over before the elevation, and therefore the priest must here have regard for the singers. The Gloria and the Credo ought, according to the Gregorian tradition, to be relatively short.

23. In general it must be considered a very grave abuse when the liturgy in ecclesiastical functions is made to appear secondary to and in a manner at the service of the music, for the music is merely a part of the liturgy and its humble handmaid.

VIII. Principal means
24. For the exact execution of what has been herein laid down, the Bishops, if they have not already done so, are to institute in their dioceses a special Commission composed of persons really competent in sacred music, and to this Commission let them entrust in the manner they find most suitable the task of watching over the music executed in their churches. Nor are they to see merely that the music is good in itself, but also that it is adapted to the powers of the singers and be always well executed.

25. In seminaries of clerics and in ecclesiastical institutions let the above-mentioned traditional Gregorian Chant be cultivated by all with diligence and love, according to the Tridentine prescriptions, and let the superiors be liberal of encouragement and praise toward their young subjects. In like manner let a Schola Cantorum be established, whenever possible, among the clerics for the execution of sacred polyphony and of good liturgical music.

26. In the ordinary lessons of Liturgy, Morals, and Canon Law given to the students of theology, let care be taken to touch on those points which regard more directly the principles and laws of sacred music, and let an attempt be made to complete the doctrine with some particular instruction in the aesthetic side of sacred art, so that the clerics may not leave the seminary ignorant of all those subjects so necessary to a full ecclesiastical education.

27. Let care be taken to restore, at least in the principal churches, the ancient Scholae Cantorum, as has been done with excellent fruit in a great many places. It is not difficult for a zealous clergy to institute such Scholae even in smaller churches and country parishesnay, in these last the pastors will find a very easy means of gathering around them both children and adults, to their own profit and the edification of the people.

28. Let efforts be made to support and promote, in the best way possible, the higher schools of sacred music where these already exist, and to help in founding them where they do not. It is of the utmost importance that the Church herself provide for the instruction of her choirmasters, organists, and singers, according to the true principles of sacred art.

IX. Conclusion
29. Finally, it is recommended to choirmasters, singers, members of the clergy, superiors of seminaries, ecclesiastical institutions, and religious communities, parish priests and rectors of churches, canons of collegiate churches and cathedrals, and, above all, to the diocesan ordinaries to favor with all zeal these prudent reforms, long desired and demanded with united voice by all; so that the authority of the Church, which herself has repeatedly proposed them, and now inculcates them, may not fall into contempt.

Given from Our Apostolic Palace at the Vatican, on the day of the Virgin and martyr, Saint Cecilia, November 22, 1903, in the first year of Our Pontificate.

Pius X, Pope
[/quote]

Pius X's is a wonderful document, but dated. It is not a Dogmatic statement such as Sacrosanctum Concilium. Your "prooftexting" is working backwards, not forwards. i.e., when you cite sacrosanctum concilium, the passage you mention is later modified, as in several other documents, with the strong encouragement of cultural adaptation. You have to interpret Church teaching by looking at the whole. You cannot pick and chose; we have to understand what our choices are. Bottom line: our local ordinaries have great leeway when it comes to allowing varied musical studles intyo the liturgy. Sacrosanctum Concilium, written decades ago, does not mandate gregorian chant, etc, rather it gives them primacy of place; then, that "primacy" is modified by the pastoral considerations of culture. So, for us as Americans, we look to our local ordinaries, and their document "Sing to the Lord."

Edited April 13, 2011 by zalzan

[zalzan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302717761' post='2228227']<BR>Your understanding of Church teaching is flawed and places undue emphasis on current trends which are inappropriate and not suited for the Liturgy.<BR>[/quote]<BR><BR><BR>Please cite examples where it is flawed. Which "current trends"? What specifically is not suited to the liturgy that I have mentioned? I haven't even mentioned specifics yet. <BR>Church teaching specifically encourages us to be open. <BR><BR>from sacrosanctum Concilium: <BR><BR>37. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit."<BR><BR>"rigid uniformity", which the Church rejects powerfully here, is currentlly our greatest hindrance to evangelization. <BR><BR>

Edited April 13, 2011 by zalzan

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='zalzan' timestamp='1302718234' post='2228234']
Pius X's is a wonderful document, but dated. It is not a Dogmatic statement such as Sacrosanctum Concilium. Your "prooftexting" is working backwards, not forwards. i.e., when you cite sacrosanctum concilium, the passage you mention is later modified, as in several other documents, with the strong encouragement of cultural adaptation. You have to interpret Church teaching by looking at the whole. You cannot pick and chose; we have to understand what our choices are. Bottom line: our local ordinaries have great leeway when it comes to allowing varied musical studles intyo the liturgy. Sacrosanctum Concilium, written decades ago, does not mandate gregorian chant, etc, rather it gives them primacy of place; then, that "primacy" is modified by the pastoral considerations of culture. So, for us as Americans, we look to our local ordinaries, and their document "Sing to the Lord."
[/quote]
You can't simply throw out old documents. Tra le sollecitudini is a motu proprio, and as such, unless elements of it are specifically abrogated (for instance we now allow mixed choirs, as long as they are not in the Sanctuary), then it must be heeded.
S.C. does not abrogate the need for Chant. It allows that in *limited circumstances*, in cultures with a strong tradition of alternative sacred music, some elements may be incorporated. To interpret that as an allowance for secular tripe is to drive a semi-truck through an opening the size of a pet door.

If you reject documents simply by virtue of their age, then we have nothing left to discuss.

[zalzan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302718749' post='2228247']
You can't simply throw out old documents. Tra le sollecitudini is a motu proprio, and as such, unless elements of it are specifically abrogated (for instance we now allow mixed choirs, as long as they are not in the Sanctuary), then it must be heeded.
S.C. does not abrogate the need for Chant. It allows that in *limited circumstances*, in cultures with a strong tradition of alternative sacred music, some elements may be incorporated. To interpret that as an allowance for secular tripe is to drive a semi-truck through an opening the size of a pet door.

If you reject documents simply by virtue of their age, then we have nothing left to discuss.
[/quote]

You are clearly a person who deals in rigid absolutes. There is a slo a serious problem with your hermeneutic. I did not reject it. I stated you have to interpret Church teaching by other teaching, and also by rank. This is especially true where pastoral considerations come into play. We could have a whole discussion about how Church teaching develops. Sacrosanctum Concilium is our most recent binding, Dogmatic Teaching on the Liturgy. It supercedes, even if it in some instiances compliments, Pius X's teaching.
In addition to Sacrosanctum Concilium, we have the teaching of our local ordinaries in Sing to the Lord.

I am sorry to hear that you feel we have nothing to discuss, but this is more of a function of you imposing your own flawed hermeneutic rigidly on my own intentions and Church Teaching. With Church teaching we must take a broad view and respect parameters that are set up in it, as opposed to trying to force it into some kind of "rigid uniformity."

[zalzan]

Getting back to evangelism and music. There is a great site called [url="http://www.catholicjukebox.com"]www.catholicjukebox.com[/url] which is a wonderful meeting point and showcase for Catholic musicians. I highly recommend people check it out, and consider promoting more contemporary styles of music in our worship, in keeping with Church teaching and encouraged by our Bishops' Conference.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='zalzan' timestamp='1302719298' post='2228254']
You are clearly a person who deals in rigid absolutes. There is a slo a serious problem with your hermeneutic. I did not reject it. I stated you have to interpret Church teaching by other teaching, and also by rank. This is especially true where pastoral considerations come into play. We could have a whole discussion about how Church teaching develops. Sacrosanctum Concilium is our most recent binding, Dogmatic Teaching on the Liturgy. It supercedes, even if it in some instiances compliments, Pius X's teaching.
In addition to Sacrosanctum Concilium, we have the teaching of our local ordinaries in Sing to the Lord.

I am sorry to hear that you feel we have nothing to discuss, but this is more of a function of you imposing your own flawed hermeneutic rigidly on my own intentions and Church Teaching. With Church teaching we must take a broad view and respect parameters that are set up in it, as opposed to trying to force it into some kind of "rigid uniformity."
[/quote]
Your local ordinaries have no authority if they contradict legitimate Church teachings. If my bishop says that Christ had only one nature, he's a heretic. He's not implementing local teachings; he's wrong.
S.C. does nothing to contradict T.L.S.. It partially abrogates Pope St. Pius X's directive that mixed choirs are not allowed, but it maintains consistently that only *sacred* music is to be used, and of *sacred* music, Gregorian Chant holds pride of place within the Latin Church. There is no intellectually honest reading in the world of this document that allows such drivel as Haugen, Haas, Hurd, and Canedo.
I am rigid only where the Church Herself is, for the purpose of legitimate, reverent, faithful worship.

[zalzan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302720033' post='2228261']
Your local ordinaries have no authority if they contradict legitimate Church teachings. If my bishop says that Christ had only one nature, he's a heretic. He's not implementing local teachings; he's wrong.
S.C. does nothing to contradict T.L.S.. It partially abrogates Pope St. Pius X's directive that mixed choirs are not allowed, but it maintains consistently that only *sacred* music is to be used, and of *sacred* music, Gregorian Chant holds pride of place within the Latin Church. There is no intellectually honest reading in the world of this document that allows such drivel as Haugen, Haas, Hurd, and Canedo.
I am rigid only where the Church Herself is, for the purpose of legitimate, reverent, faithful worship.
[/quote]


Ah, now we finally come to it! I was hoping this would not happen. You have set yourself up as an authority over our own local ordinaries, with your implication that their approval of the artists you mention sets them somehow at odds with Rome. Church teaching tells us that we must "cleave" to our bishop. You have instead chosen to cleave to a distorted hermeneutic that takes Church teaching out of context and ignores the principles of development of doctrine as well as the pastoral parameters established. I myself trust our Bishops, the Successors of the Apostles, who are in full communion with Rome (no excommunications, interdicts or censures lately that I have heard of).

I also note that Rome has recently taken up the issue of evangelization again, and one of the remarks I saw indicates a concern that our efforts have been stagnant. I sense great things coming in the work of evangelism.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='zalzan' timestamp='1302720851' post='2228272']
Ah, now we finally come to it! I was hoping this would not happen. You have set yourself up as an authority over our own local ordinaries, with your implication that their approval of the artists you mention sets them somehow at odds with Rome. Church teaching tells us that we must "cleave" to our bishop. You have instead chosen to cleave to a distorted hermeneutic that takes Church teaching out of context and ignores the principles of development of doctrine as well as the pastoral parameters established. I myself trust our Bishops, the Successors of the Apostles, who are in full communion with Rome (no excommunications, interdicts or censures lately that I have heard of).

I also note that Rome has recently taken up the issue of evangelization again, and one of the remarks I saw indicates a concern that our efforts have been stagnant. I sense great things coming in the work of evangelism.
[/quote]
Are you telling me that if my bishop says that Christ has one nature only, that he is not a heretic?

[zalzan]

here is a blurb I found referenceing the "New Evangelism." We as Catholics at the grass roots level really need to be on board with the Pope and the Bishops in finding better w ays to evangelize. The interesting thing about it is its emphasis on evangelizing areas previously
established by the Church.


[url="http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=429515"]http://www.oecumene....lo.asp?c=429515[/url]

Edited April 13, 2011 by zalzan

[zalzan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302720976' post='2228273']
Are you telling me that if my bishop says that Christ has one nature only, that he is not a heretic?
[/quote]

Where in heaven's name did you get that from my statement? I thought we were speaking about liturgical music and evangelism? I never mentioned the Divine Nature, you did.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='zalzan' timestamp='1302721692' post='2228278']
Where in heaven's name did you get that from my statement? I thought we were speaking about liturgical music and evangelism? I never mentioned the Divine Nature, you did.
[/quote]
I established quite clearly that not everything a hierarch says is within his authority, therefore common sense and discernment is necessary.

[zalzan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302721840' post='2228280']
I established quite clearly that not everything a hierarch says is within his authority, therefore common sense and discernment is necessary.
[/quote]

Really, and you consider yourself competent enough to "discern" this? Would one not first defer to the Cardinal Archbishop, then the Papal Nuncio? I have no problem with that, but you yourself have no authority whatsoever to contradict your local ordinaries, especially in a public forum. Such a thing would not cross my mind out of obedience. Consider the following from Sacrosanctum Concilium:

[i][b]A) General norms[/b][/i]

22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See [i]and, as laws may determine, on the bishop[/i].

2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy [i]within certain defined limits[/i] belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established

now, if we further read the teaching, we see that the "limits" are delineated; bishops can make pastoral judgements regarding music based upon culture and need, with a guiding principle that doctrinal soundness and sacredness are upheld.

If one is going tp publicly accuse our Bishops of promoting "drivel" or of acting in disobedience to Rome, you had better be very sure of yourself.

From St. Paul (!Cor):

"For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world—right up to this moment."

I have personally known several bishops and at least one Cardinal Archbishop. They were remarkable individuals. I would never in a million years want to treat them as Paul tells us he is used to being treated. When we dismiss our bishops, even our local ordinary, we do so at extreme peril.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='zalzan' timestamp='1302722809' post='2228288']
Really, and you consider yourself competent enough to "discern" this? Would one not first defer to the Cardinal Archbishop, then the Papal Nuncio? I have no problem with that, but you yourself have no authority whatsoever to contradict your local ordinaries, especially in a public forum. Such a thing would not cross my mind out of obedience. Consider the following from Sacrosanctum Concilium:

[i][b]A) General norms[/b][/i]

22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See [i]and, as laws may determine, on the bishop[/i].

2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy [i]within certain defined limits[/i] belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established

now, if we further read the teaching, we see that the "limits" are delineated; bishops can make pastoral judgements regarding music based upon culture and need, with a guiding principle that doctrinal soundness and sacredness are upheld.

If one is going tp publicly accuse our Bishops of promoting "drivel" or of acting in disobedience to Rome, you had better be very sure of yourself.

From St. Paul (!Cor):

"For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world—right up to this moment."

I have personally known several bishops and at least one Cardinal Archbishop. They were remarkable individuals. I would never in a million years want to treat them as Paul tells us he is used to being treated. When we dismiss our bishops, even our local ordinary, we do so at extreme peril.
[/quote]
Please point out where Rome has promoted the cringe-worthy 'music' of Haugen, Haas, Hurd, and Canedo.

[zalzan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302723134' post='2228292']
Please point out where Rome has promoted the cringe-worthy 'music' of Haugen, Haas, Hurd, and Canedo.
[/quote]


Easily done. Approved by ICEL and our local ordinaries here in the USA. In doing so, the Bishops are acting withing the bounds of the pastoral authority given them. Rome itself does not get involved with approving specific musical arrangements. It has handed this authority to conferences and local ordinaries.

If you examine the document "Musicam Sacram" you will see the expression "competent territorial authorities" used multiple times...i.e:

55. The [i][b]competent territorial authority[/b][/i] will decide whether the vernacular texts traditionally associated with certain melodies may be used, even though these texts do not correspond exactly to the approved translations of liturgical texts.



57. New melodies for the priest and ministers must receive the approval of the[i][b] competent territorial authority[/b][/i]. [40]

however my favorite excerpt is this, since it establishes parameters:

61. The attempt to adapt sacred music in those areas that possess their own musical tradition, especially mission lands, requires special preparation on the part of musicians. [42] The issue is one of harmoniously blending a sense of the sacred with the spirit, traditions, and expressions proper to the genius of those peoples. All involved must possess a sufficient knowledge of the Church's liturgy and musical tradition as well as of the language, the popular singing, and the other cultural expressions of the people for whom they labor.