A Simple Suggestion

[Luigi]

I've noticed, in a number of threads, people 'talking past' each other. This could be the result of sensitivity, or willful misinterpretation, but it could also be a violation of the most basic rule of rhetoric - define your terms at the beginning of your debate. Anyone who took Comp I /Comp II in college should remember that one. The English language has a plethora of vocabulary from which the educated and carefully articulate poster can choose to express her/his ideas umambiguously. It will save us all a lot of heartache & angst if we choose our terms carefully and define them clearly.

[b]Example 1:[/b] Criticism is not the same as a critique. In my idiolect, criticism of a Vatican II document would be something like, "The Council went too far when they declared X," and a critique would be something like, "The document is unclear on this point." I will leave it to the original posters to clarify specifically what they mean by 'criticism' and whether they sometimes mean 'critique.'

[b]Example 2:[/b] Capital-T Tradition is not the same as small-t tradition. Similarly, I should think that Traditionalists are not the same as traditionalists.

[b]Example 3:[/b] Secular/contemporary/Christian music - y'all have to sort that out on your own - it's above my pay grade.

[b]Example 4:[/b] Gregorian chant should be given 'pride of place' in the Church. I have no clue in the world what that means - which is a critique of the phrase, not a criticism, based on my own personal lack of understanding. I find the phrase ambiguous.

Caveat poster: Church documents are often written in an ambiguous style - not only is it traditional, it is probably necessary so that the local ordinaries in dioceses throughout the world can apply the principles to their particular local church. Those who are trained in theology and in the style of church discourse known as Romanita know how to interpret the ambiguity of the Church documents - or at least are better at it than those of us who are not trained in theology and Romanita.

[Debra Little]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1308024722' post='2253479']
I've noticed, in a number of threads, people 'talking past' each other. This could be the result of sensitivity, or willful misinterpretation, but it could also be a violation of the most basic rule of rhetoric - define your terms at the beginning of your debate. Anyone who took Comp I /Comp II in college should remember that one. The English language has a plethora of vocabulary from which the educated and carefully articulate poster can choose to express her/his ideas umambiguously. It will save us all a lot of heartache & angst if we choose our terms carefully and define them clearly.

[b]Example 1:[/b] Criticism is not the same as a critique. In my idiolect, criticism of a Vatican II document would be something like, "The Council went too far when they declared X," and a critique would be something like, "The document is unclear on this point." I will leave it to the original posters to clarify specifically what they mean by 'criticism' and whether they sometimes mean 'critique.'

[b]Example 2:[/b] Capital-T Tradition is not the same as small-t tradition. Similarly, I should think that Traditionalists are not the same as traditionalists.

[b]Example 3:[/b] Secular/contemporary/Christian music - y'all have to sort that out on your own - it's above my pay grade.

[b]Example 4:[/b] Gregorian chant should be given 'pride of place' in the Church. I have no clue in the world what that means - which is a critique of the phrase, not a criticism, based on my own personal lack of understanding. I find the phrase ambiguous.

Caveat poster: Church documents are often written in an ambiguous style - not only is it traditional, it is probably necessary so that the local ordinaries in dioceses throughout the world can apply the principles to their particular local church. Those who are trained in theology and in the style of church discourse known as Romanita know how to interpret the ambiguity of the Church documents - or at least are better at it than those of us who are not trained in theology and Romanita.
[/quote]



I prefer telling it like it is.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1308024722' post='2253479']
I've noticed, in a number of threads, people 'talking past' each other. This could be the result of sensitivity, or willful misinterpretation, but it could also be a violation of the most basic rule of rhetoric - define your terms at the beginning of your debate. Anyone who took Comp I /Comp II in college should remember that one. The English language has a plethora of vocabulary from which the educated and carefully articulate poster can choose to express her/his ideas umambiguously. It will save us all a lot of heartache & angst if we choose our terms carefully and define them clearly.

[b]Example 1:[/b] Criticism is not the same as a critique. In my idiolect, criticism of a Vatican II document would be something like, "The Council went too far when they declared X," and a critique would be something like, "The document is unclear on this point." I will leave it to the original posters to clarify specifically what they mean by 'criticism' and whether they sometimes mean 'critique.'

[b]Example 2:[/b] Capital-T Tradition is not the same as small-t tradition. Similarly, I should think that Traditionalists are not the same as traditionalists.

[b]Example 3:[/b] Secular/contemporary/Christian music - y'all have to sort that out on your own - it's above my pay grade.

[b]Example 4:[/b] Gregorian chant should be given 'pride of place' in the Church. I have no clue in the world what that means - which is a critique of the phrase, not a criticism, based on my own personal lack of understanding. I find the phrase ambiguous.

Caveat poster: Church documents are often written in an ambiguous style - not only is it traditional, it is probably necessary so that the local ordinaries in dioceses throughout the world can apply the principles to their particular local church. Those who are trained in theology and in the style of church discourse known as Romanita know how to interpret the ambiguity of the Church documents - or at least are better at it than those of us who are not trained in theology and Romanita.
[/quote]

[Amppax]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1308024722' post='2253479']
[b]Example 4:[/b] Gregorian chant should be given 'pride of place' in the Church. I have no clue in the world what that means - which is a critique of the phrase, not a criticism, based on my own personal lack of understanding. I find the phrase ambiguous.

[/quote]

yeah can we get a definition on this one? plz?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1308286967' post='2254963']
yeah can we get a definition on this one? plz?
[/quote]
It's not hard. It means Gregorian chant is the go-to choice. It's the standard. Unless there is good reason to do otherwise (addressed below), then use Gregorian chant.
Reasons not to use Gregorian chant:
Extra special feast days can have Gregorian chant + polyphony, like Palestrina. Especially like Palestrina.
Extra extra special events could have instrumentation besides the organ, for instance violins, maybe some wind instruments. There is sacred music written for instruments as well, though I don't listen to much.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308287331' post='2254965']
It's not hard. It means Gregorian chant is the go-to choice. It's the standard. Unless there is good reason to do otherwise (addressed below), then use Gregorian chant.
Reasons not to use Gregorian chant:
Extra special feast days can have Gregorian chant + polyphony, like Palestrina. Especially like Palestrina.
Extra extra special events could have instrumentation besides the organ, for instance violins, maybe some wind instruments. There is sacred music written for instruments as well, though I don't listen to much.
[/quote]
+The average parishioners are not trained to be members of a schola.

Edited June 17, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308288323' post='2254967']
+The average parishioners are not trained to be members of a schola.
[/quote]

The average parishioner is not trained to sing period. But still their not a bunch of mindless poo flinging monkeys they can indeed grasp basic Gregorian chant.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1308290784' post='2254973']
The average parishioner is not trained to sing period.
[/quote]
I will grant you this, but it is easier to read words in one's first language and make noise that sounds like a cohesive tune, written according to the "rules" of our familiar, western, "modern", metric musical culture than to sing the foreign-sounding and non-metric (by our standards) plainchant.

Edited June 17, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308291199' post='2254975']
I will grant you this, but it is easier to read words in one's first language and make noise that sounds like a cohesive tune, written according to the "rules" of our familiar, western, "modern", metric musical culture than to sing the foreign-sounding and non-metric (by our standards) plainchant.
[/quote]

Life isn't easy. I think it's lame to prefer what is easier, because it's easier. The laity aren't a bunch of fickle mush heads. It may not be easy as stacking building blocks in kindergarten class but the laity can learn.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1308291828' post='2254977']
Life isn't easy. I think it's lame to prefer what is easier, because it's easier. The laity aren't a bunch of fickle mush heads. It may not be easy as stacking building blocks in kindergarten class but the laity can learn.
[/quote]
People can learn anything they want to. That's a fact of life. The converse is also true. People will not learn something they don't want to learn. How many of the laity (and I'm not talking drive 90 minutes each way every Sunday to attend a Traditional Latin Mass type laity, I'm talking pack the kids in the Suburban and drive to St. Nearby's type laity (which make up the overwhelming majority)) do you suppose would set aside the time necessary to learn plainchant? Some would, maybe, but probably not many, and certainly not most. Who would teach it? I wouldn't think that most priests would know it (maybe I'm wrong, I usually am), but even assuming that every priest in the US knew it and could teach it, our priests are stretched thin already. My priest at home was responsible for every mass (once daily, two on Saturday, three on Sunday), for all of the pastoral duties like ministry to the sick and reconciliation and so forth, and then had all the other parish priest stuff to do...and was quickly approaching 80, with no other priests in the parish (and it was a decent sized parish, too). When would he squeeze chant lessons for the parish in there?
I'd wager that most people who want to know how to sing plainchant already have learned how, and indeed, already do on a regular basis.

Edited June 17, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS

[dominicansoul]

I don't mean to continue to derail this thread, but I just had to share...


...my Dominican Sisters pretty much "took over" a Catholic elementary school in my area. Their first music lessons were teaching the children to sing Latin Eucharistic hymns. (I think this is the way the Church needs to go...teach the children...)


...one morning, during Mass (which, because of my Doms, the school had Mass every morning rather than once a week,) the priest was raising the Host during Consecration...suddenly, a little kindergartner started singing the "Tantum Ergo." When her little voiced bellowed out the hymn, ALL the children joined hers...in perfect Latin, with all their little hearts!!! The priest didn't move, he kept the Host elevated until the children finished...and then he continued with teh Mass...


it left most of those present speechless and emotional. I see evidence of the "new springtime..."


i think it is very easy to teach children latin and gregorian chant... adults can easily do it too, but they just have to desire it, and i think most people are afraid of changes...

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1308293072' post='2254981'](I think this is the way the Church needs to go...teach the children...)

[/quote]
Yes, this is without a doubt where it would have to come from (and not just with chant either...good catechesis, too. So many fewer would our problems be if only we could be bothered to teach the children well...)

Edited June 17, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS

[missionseeker]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308291199' post='2254975']
I will grant you this, but it is easier to read words in one's first language and make noise that sounds like a cohesive tune, written according to the "rules" of our familiar, western, "modern", metric musical culture than to sing the foreign-sounding and non-metric (by our standards) plainchant.
[/quote]
From a purely musical technical stand point, chant is actually MUCH easier to sing than most "traditional hymns" in the Church (and by traditional I'm talking things that you would find at mass in about 75% of Catholic parishes.) Chant has a much narrower range and usually moves by step-wise motion as opposed to large ranges with large intervalic jumps. And while it is definitely easier to read in your native language, most people learn at least one or two songs that are not just by listening to the radio. And I'm really not sure how chant doesn't sound like a cohesive tune. But anyway, looking purely at the two styles of music, chant is easier for the untrained person to sing.

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308292888' post='2254980']
People can learn anything they want to. That's a fact of life. The converse is also true. People will not learn something they don't want to learn. How many of the laity (and I'm not talking drive 90 minutes each way every Sunday to attend a Traditional Latin Mass type laity, I'm talking pack the kids in the Suburban and drive to St. Nearby's type laity (which make up the overwhelming majority)) do you suppose would set aside the time necessary to learn plainchant? Some would, maybe, but probably not many, and certainly not most. Who would teach it? I wouldn't think that most priests would know it (maybe I'm wrong, I usually am), but even assuming that every priest in the US knew it and could teach it, our priests are stretched thin already. My priest at home was responsible for every mass (once daily, two on Saturday, three on Sunday), for all of the pastoral duties like ministry to the sick and reconciliation and so forth, and then had all the other parish priest stuff to do...and was quickly approaching 80, with no other priests in the parish (and it was a decent sized parish, too). When would he squeeze chant lessons for the parish in there?
I'd wager that most people who want to know how to sing plainchant already have learned how, and indeed, already do on a regular basis.
[/quote]


Being a Catholic is rarely about what we want to do, and almost always about what we SHOULD do. That is why we have a Pope and a Magesterium to look to for guidelines. AND a promise that God isn't gonna let them screw up official matters. When the councils say "we should do Mass this way" who are we to say "but I'd rather do something else" ?

[Mr.Cat]

Catholics should be more accepting of other Catholics.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1308297721' post='2254985']
From a purely musical technical stand point, chant is actually MUCH easier to sing than most "traditional hymns" in the Church (and by traditional I'm talking things that you would find at mass in about 75% of Catholic parishes.) Chant has a much narrower range and usually moves by step-wise motion as opposed to large ranges with large intervalic jumps.[/quote]
I'll grant you that there are some poorly written hymns that your average parishioner would not have the pipes for, but most traditional tunes seem to be stepwise and have reasonable intervals when they occur (just tunes I'm thinking of off the top of my head: St. Anne, Canonbury, Llanfair, Llangloffan, Dix...and those were just the first five that came to mine). [quote]
And while it is definitely easier to read in your native language, most people learn at least one or two songs that are not just by listening to the radio. And I'm really not sure how chant doesn't sound like a cohesive tune.[/quote]
Seems to me that the cadences (lack thereof?) and melodic line just wouldn't feel natural to your average pew warmer.

[quote]Being a Catholic is rarely about what we want to do, and almost always about what we SHOULD do. That is why we have a Pope and a Magesterium to look to for guidelines. AND a promise that God isn't gonna let them screw up official matters. When the councils say "we should do Mass this way" who are we to say "but I'd rather do something else" ?
[/quote]
You don't have to argue that to me, I'm merely trying to presenting the point of the "average" parishioner (who, you must concede, make up the majority of Catholics in this country).