Pope Benedict On Music And The Liturgy

[dUSt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1306885836' post='2248409']
You wish.
[/quote]
tl;dr

[Nihil Obstat]

[img]http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a480/Zomg_Coke/Stophating.jpg[/img]

[Papist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1306877364' post='2248351']
As I said before, you're understanding the Liturgy of the Word as being oriented around and towards the congregation, instead of towards God. It is first an act of worship. Also, making an effort to read the Scripture of the day before Mass would be a very praiseworthy practice.
Again, the Gospel is proclaimed by the priest in his function as an alter Christus, on our behalf, towards God as an act of worship. That is why in the usus antiquior, the priest is facing the altar/tabernacle/crucifix, not the congregation, though he does face the congregation at parts that are directed to them (Dominus vobiscum/Oremus, the homily).

Again, from my helpful friend:

When one is talking about "the readings" at Mass, one has to understand a couple of things...

1. The focus in the NO is completely different than that in the Traditional Latin Mass. The NO considers the Liturgy of the Word to be on an equal footing as the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Not so in the Traditional Latin Mass. While the proclamation of the Gospel is indeed important, there is a reason why the Catechumens were made to leave at the offertory in the Traditional Latin Mass, in the early days.

2. The singing of the Lessons....in the Traditional Latin Mass, the primary means of hearing the lessons was to hear them chanted. This is all that is required. There is no mandate that there should be a reading of the lessons in the vernacular. It is a fairly recent innovation, as it were. However, when it was introduced, it was introduced outside of the Mass itself, during the homily/sermon. Also, it was not mandatory that a priest read the vernacular. Often times a subdeacon or a cleric/layman sitting in choir was called upon to do so. The proclamation of the Gospel had already been sung by the priest. The NO has a completely different mentality with regard to this as well. The NO assumes that the reading will be done in the vernacular only. Also, there is now an option either sing or say the lessons. The requirement to sing them became nil.

3. As for singing the lessons, it is far more desirable, for several reasons... a. It allows for proper worship during the Mass of the Catechumens; b. it allows for ample time to reflect upon and internalize the fact that the priest is proclaming a piece of Scripture on our Behalf to God. Again, worship; c. it opens the door to having the lesson brought to us in a more beautiful way, ie. singing v. reciting.

4. With the advent of the Novus Ordo, the restructuring of the Mass of the Catechumens into the Liturgy of the Word took away the worshiping aspect of the lessons. We now were to engage the lesson as opposed to worship. It became a matter of presenting participatio activa over participatio actuosa. To go through the motions as opposed to internalizing the action itself. The Scripture is first to be worshiped. It is second to be internalized. It is third to be understood, from a linguistic point of view. These roles have been absolutely reversed.

There is more, but the basic understanding of why we have the readings is not first to linguistically understand them, but to worship. It matters not that they are in Latin. The act of worship is first a matter of participatio actuosa. The participatio activa happens during the homily, when that form of active participation should be applied.
[/quote]
Unconvincing. Seems like you are attempting to prove after you decided.

[Papist]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306877310' post='2248350']
The Mass is beyond understanding. The Mass to be prayed, and the mystery of the Mass transcends our understanding. You will receive the same grace attending Mass as anyone else who either read allow with the Missal or not.
[/quote]
Thank you.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1306885707' post='2248406']
I don't know. It seems like with certain people, every time I agree with them, they freak out and can't believe it's happening, so they backtrack and try to figure out what went so terribly wrong, and then they come to the conclusion that what I'm saying must not really be what I'm saying, so they start arguing about a point they think I thought I meant, and then it confuses me into countering that point even though I don't actually agree with it myself. It's quite fascinating actually. Go Mavs!!!
[/quote]

To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1306886830' post='2248418']
Unconvincing. Seems like you are attempting to prove after you decided.
[/quote]
That's pretty rich.

[Zero]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1306819388' post='2248053']
Well I'd like that too. My point is that it need not add a ridiculous amount of time to the Mass.
I'm told that there are some fairly robust English chants of the Gospel. I haven't heard them myself though.
[/quote]

There are, but I've only heard them whilst visiting Byzantine Rite churches =

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Zero' timestamp='1306889816' post='2248448']
There are, but I've only heard them whilst visiting Byzantine Rite churches =
[/quote]
That makes sense. I hadn't considered the Byzantine vernacular chants. I know the Ukrainian Catholic parishes in my city do sung Masses in English.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306883669' post='2248393']
what's this all about? what's the debate?
[/quote]
i have no idea. i got lost awhile back.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306887406' post='2248425']
To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.
[/quote]
my heads hurts.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1306875066' post='2248311']Also, moving backwards a bit (to the amount of time in the Liturgy of the Word), [b]a very helpful friend[/b] of mine said the following to me:[/quote]
really?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1306905997' post='2248594']
really?
[/quote]
Yes, why?

[Aloysius]

there are two things that we can get out of the gospels: one is worship, one is instruction. when the gospels are chanted, it is an act of worship as much as the veneration of a beautiful icon. we are worshipping the Lord by contemplating His actions in the gospel in their painted form or their sung form; just as we paint them in art to worship the Lord in that art form, we chant them to worship the Lord in that art form. when they are recited, it is generally a form of didactic instruction.

now of course we can worship/contemplate them while they're being recited, and we can be instructed while they're being chanted, but generally the veil of latin being placed over something in the liturgy of the Latin Church evokes a particular spirit and atmosphere of worship. it's a type of worship you can't get any other way other than by having a sacred language, and it's a great treasure for the Church. worship in English isn't worse, but it is definitely different, and the Latin Church would be impoverished greatly if it lost the particular way of worshipping in the Latin language. Latin Catholics should not shun that particular type of worshipping completely, and I would recommend making every effort to enter into that type of worship that has colored our Church for centuries producing so many saints, at least occassionally. the chanting of the gospel in latin is an experience that when properly approached cannot be found in any other setting. it's not the same when it's chanted in English. Not to say it's better or worse chanted in Latin or English (though I would say it is better chanted than recited, since it emphasizes God-centered worship rather than people-centered instruction, and I think the people-centered instruction should be reserved as much as possible for the homily only)

I think the general preference for reciting the gospel reflects the general preference in the modern liturgy for being didactic and instructive, and that has hurt the atmosphere of worship that should be in the liturgy. instruction is people-centered, that is a good thing but it's more proper in the homily than in the liturgy (or "in the rest of the liturgy" if you want to include the homily as part of the liturgy... I tend to agree with the view that it is something which is outside the liturgy in some sense).

Edited June 1, 2011 by Aloysius

[Laudate_Dominum]

What Aloysius said!

[Amppax]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1306919242' post='2248622']
there are two things that we can get out of the gospels: one is worship, one is instruction. when the gospels are chanted, it is an act of worship as much as the veneration of a beautiful icon. we are worshipping the Lord by contemplating His actions in the gospel in their painted form or their sung form; just as we paint them in art to worship the Lord in that art form, we chant them to worship the Lord in that art form. when they are recited, it is generally a form of didactic instruction.

now of course we can worship/contemplate them while they're being recited, and we can be instructed while they're being chanted, but generally the veil of latin being placed over something in the liturgy of the Latin Church evokes a particular spirit and atmosphere of worship. it's a type of worship you can't get any other way other than by having a sacred language, and it's a great treasure for the Church. worship in English isn't worse, but it is definitely different, and the Latin Church would be impoverished greatly if it lost the particular way of worshipping in the Latin language. Latin Catholics should not shun that particular type of worshipping completely, and I would recommend making every effort to enter into that type of worship that has colored our Church for centuries producing so many saints, at least occassionally. the chanting of the gospel in latin is an experience that when properly approached cannot be found in any other setting. it's not the same when it's chanted in English. Not to say it's better or worse chanted in Latin or English (though I would say it is better chanted than recited, since it emphasizes God-centered worship rather than people-centered instruction, and I think the people-centered instruction should be reserved as much as possible for the homily only)

I think the general preference for reciting the gospel reflects the general preference in the modern liturgy for being didactic and instructive, and that has hurt the atmosphere of worship that should be in the liturgy. instruction is people-centered, that is a good thing but it's more proper in the homily than in the liturgy (or "in the rest of the liturgy" if you want to include the homily as part of the liturgy... I tend to agree with the view that it is something which is outside the liturgy in some sense).
[/quote]

I think from now on i'm just going to skip everything else in these debates, and go right to what you write.