How All Catholic Churches Should Look!

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='mme_hardy' timestamp='1331834300' post='2401247']
I think this modern [url="http://www.poorclarescincinnati.org/Images/sistersAtPrayer634.jpg"]Poor Clare[/url] chapel is glorious. There's another order's chapel (anybody remember this one?) that has the baptismal font overflowing down to the altar, forming the physical separation between the sisters and the world.
[/quote]
Where are their habits?! ... Never mind me. I'm just going to sit over here and be quiet. I will resume my posting later today. Or tomorrow. Or never. PAX, Y'ALL.

[Deus te Amat]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1331836399' post='2401279']

Where are their habits?! ... Never mind me. I'm just going to sit over here and be quiet. I will resume my posting later today. Or tomorrow. Or never. PAX, Y'ALL.
[/quote]

Goodbye posts aren't allowed.

[mme_hardy]

You can see their habits more clearly [url="http://www.poorclarescincinnati.org/vocations.html"]here[/url].

[Nihil Obstat]

Looks like a lovely community.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='mme_hardy' timestamp='1331839718' post='2401316']
You can see their habits more clearly [url="http://www.poorclarescincinnati.org/vocations.html"]here[/url].
[/quote]
I'm sure they are lovely ladies.

[beatitude]

[quote name='mme_hardy' timestamp='1331834300' post='2401247']
I think this modern [url="http://www.poorclarescincinnati.org/Images/sistersAtPrayer634.jpg"]Poor Clare[/url] chapel is glorious. There's another order's chapel (anybody remember this one?) that has the baptismal font overflowing down to the altar, forming the physical separation between the sisters and the world.
[/quote]

Those are the Passionist nuns in Whitesville, Kentucky. If I were American I would be there in a heartbeat.

[mme_hardy]

Aha! Thank you. A picture of the [url="http://www.passionistnuns.org/blog/2012/02/02/vocation-consecrated-life-day/"]water in their chapel[/url], which flows from the baptismal font.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='mme_hardy' timestamp='1331841403' post='2401336']
Aha! Thank you. A picture of the [url="http://www.passionistnuns.org/blog/2012/02/02/vocation-consecrated-life-day/"]water in their chapel[/url], which flows from the baptismal font.
[/quote]
Very interesting.

[franciscanheart]

[size=2][i]Part one of two -- breaking it up so the quotes will work.[/i][/size]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331832164' post='2401204']
Oh, that one? I didn't respond because I saw nothing to respond to. Maybe you're reading me in a way I didn't intend. There's nothing in that post I've argued against, for sure. I don't disagree with anything there, so I'm not sure what response you were looking for.
[/quote]

I went back to look at my failed attempt to dialogue with you and found at least this which you either overlooked or ignored:

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1331824984' post='2401098']
Whence did that quote come?
[/quote]

Let's start there.

------------------------------------------------

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1331831306' post='2401180']
Can you explain why Gregorian chant is so fitting to the liturgy? It's one thing to keep repeating that it is, it's another to actually understand the position you are taking. Which, given your lack of response to honest questions for USAir and Fransicanheart, I'm really not sure you get the reasoning behind it. Because they right, yeah chant is great, but to keep only chant (or chant and 15-16th century polyphony) is denying the faithful of a treasure which they deserve. And that really does seem to be what you are saying.
[/quote]
Right on, mission. amesome response.

----------------------------------------------------------

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1331831306' post='2401180']
No it is not. Church documents do not instruct the faithful to go out and be EMHCs. They do instruct them to learn to sing certain parts of the Mass.

Again, long before Vatican II, the church instructed the faithful that they should indeed learn the basic chants of the Mass [i]and sing them[/i]. Not wanting to is really not a great reason not to do so.

It is, however, still encouraged. (And yes, I've been liturgically trained for Traditional Latin Masses).
[/quote]
All of these things she's said: I say them too. Or whatever.

--------------------------------------------------------

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1331831306' post='2401180']
If I show up at mass and say "yo, God, I'm here ok?" and sit there bummed that I'm there, HOW is that different from someone who is at Mass and is off in their own world EVEN if that is praying the rosary or something. Neither one of those people is really participating in Mass.
[/quote]
I'm nodding my head in agreement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1331831389' post='2401182']
Taken out of context much? i like how you added in some words "shouldn't sing the". That's not what the document says and that's not the context the document says it in.

[color=#000000]b) Secondly, the congregation [u][b]can sing the parts[/b][/u] of the Ordinary of the Mass: [/color][i]Kyrie, eleison; Gloria in excelsis Deo; Credo; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei[/i][color=#000000]. Every effort must be made that the faithful learn to sing these parts, particularly according to the simpler Gregorian melodies. [u][b]But if they are unable to sing all these parts, there is no reason why they cannot sing[/b][/u] the easier ones: [/color][i]Kyrie, eleison; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei[/i][color=#000000]; the choir, then, can sing the [/color][i]Gloria[/i][color=#000000], and [/color][i]Credo[/i][color=#000000]."[/color]

In other words: The faithful can, are permitted to sing the parts of the ordinary of the mass, and effort must be made that they learn these parts (regardless of if they sing them they should learn them), but if they are unable to sing all of the parts, they can still sing some of them.

Quite different than "There is no reason they should not sing..."
[/quote]
Also quite different, it would seem, than suggesting that the faithful NOT sing when perfectly able to do so.

----------------------------------------------------------

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1331831389' post='2401182']
Haas was an example and you know it. I don't know anyone on PM that likes Haas, Haugen, or any of those folks, but what I'm saying is there is a WIDE WIDE stretch of music that has been created for the liturgy outside of chant, and it stretches from polyphony to Haas et al., so yes there sacred music outside of gregorian chant, but it doesn't mean by necessity that it includes guitars, or a lot of what churches use today. Again I'm not making an argument for what is and is not sacred music, I am just saying that the document you cited does not necessitate that a lot of the modern music sung today is sacred music.
[/quote]
I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make with this bit. Can and will you please clarify what you are defending / questioning / whatever? Thanks!

[franciscanheart]

[i]Part two of two -- breaking it up so the quotes will work.[/i]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1331832151' post='2401202']
The documents no where said the opposite of what Nihil Obstat was saying. I only saw documents that referred to the existence of sacred music outside of gregorian chant. Well, polyphony is sacred music outside of gregorian chant. No document was sited that said guitars, hymns, etc. were sacred music. What's to stop composers from writing new polyphony? Then we'd have modern sacred music.
[/quote]
Who objected to composers writing polyphony?

--------------------------------------------------

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1331832151' post='2401202']
The Church instructed the clergy that they should make every effort to teach the faithful the basic chants of the mass, but they did not instruct that the laity had to sing them.
[/quote]
If you're not singing just to be obstinate, to voice your disagreement with the Church's instruction, that's your sin of pride. If you choose not to participate when able, you separate yourself unnecessarily from the rest of the congregation. Your arrogance in some of these matters is scandalous; I can see where that would manifest through action or inaction during Mass. Just something to think about.

--------------------------------------

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1331832417' post='2401214']
Again it doesn't say that the faithful ought to sing, only that they need to be taught how.
[/quote]
Somewhere around here is probably someone who could defend the idea that just because it isn't spelled out, does not mean it isn't implied. In fact, are you an American? Learn something about the Constitution, then come back and try to defend that argument. Our Constitution doesn't spell out A LOT OF THINGS, but our protections and liberties are implied.

------------------------------------------------------------

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1331832417' post='2401214']
It's a lot easier for me to pray hearing a song I know than it is one that I'm not familiar with at all. Doesn't mean I have to sing the song to pray though.
[/quote]
I don't think anyone claimed that you had to sing in order to pray.

-----------------------------------------

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1331833984' post='2401246']
I'm really really confused about what you ARE trying to say. NO ONE here is advocating Daivid Hass or guitars at Mass. So I'm not sure what your stance is here. Why did you bring them up? All we are saying is that church allows for WAY more than just chant and polyphony (which, btw, polyphony can mean almost anything, because its literal translation is "many sounds"). So what is your problem with us advocating use of more than just chant?
[/quote]
I'm really interested in seeing a response to this from those who oppose our advocating use of more than plainchant.

---------------------------------------------------------------

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1331833984' post='2401246']
As to the second, Spin it anyway you want, the Church is prescribing that the faithful sing.
[/quote]
Right on, mission. I think I like you.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1331849697' post='2401424']
[size=2][i]Part one of two -- breaking it up so the quotes will work.[/i][/size]



I went back to look at my failed attempt to dialogue with you and found at least this which you either overlooked or ignored:

"Whence did that quote come?"

Let's start there.
[/quote]
That would be De Musica Sacra, and I'm not sure why you even asked that because you obviously knew the answer.

Turns out I missed Missionseeker's post to me. I'm going to work on a response now.
The rest was not directed towards me, so I will not address it.

[Nihil Obstat]

Somehow missed this before. Will respond now.

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1331831306' post='2401180']
Can you explain why Gregorian chant is so fitting to the liturgy? It's one thing to keep repeating that it is, it's another to actually understand the position you are taking. Which, given your lack of response to honest questions for USAir and Fransicanheart, I'm really not sure you get the reasoning behind it. Because they right, yeah chant is great, but to keep only chant (or chant and 15-16th century polyphony) is denying the faithful of a treasure which they deserve. And that really does seem to be what you are saying.



So far you've offered an opinion on what music is acceptable at Mass. You say chant and old polyphony. He called you on it, you said you have made no opinions on it. What? He directly quoted you and offered church documents that say exactly the opposite of what you are saying.


And yet, when you go back and read the thread you are saying just that.


No it is not. Church documents do not instruct the faithful to go out and be EMHCs. They do instruct them to learn to sing certain parts of the Mass.


Again, long before Vatican II, the church instructed the faithful that they should indeed learn the basic chants of the Mass [i]and sing them[/i]. Not wanting to is really not a great reason not to do so.




It is, however, still encouraged. (And yes, I've been liturgically trained for Traditional Latin Masses).

I'm reminded of




If I show up at mass and say "yo, God, I'm here ok?" and sit there bummed that I'm there, HOW is that different from someone who is at Mass and is off in their own world EVEN if that is praying the rosary or something. Neither one of those people is really participating in Mass.
[/quote]

"Can you explain why Gregorian chant is so fitting to the liturgy? It's one thing to keep repeating that it is, it's another to actually understand the position you are taking. Which, given your lack of response to honest questions for USAir and Fransicanheart, I'm really not sure you get the reasoning behind it. Because they right, yeah chant is great, but to keep only chant (or chant and 15-16th century polyphony) is denying the faithful of a treasure which they deserve. And that really does seem to be what you are saying."
I don't recall implying that only chant or Renaissance polyphony is acceptable. I use those two as examples because chant is the 'gold standard' and polyphony IMO is artistically closest to chant, so they are convenient to speak of when talking about sacred music, but I do not believe I have implied that they are the only acceptable styles.

"So far you've offered an opinion on what music is acceptable at Mass. You say chant and old polyphony. He called you on it, you said you have made no opinions on it. What? He directly quoted you and offered church documents that say exactly the opposite of what you are saying."
I never said *only* chant and Renaissance polyphony were acceptable at Mass, therefore those documents which recognize other acceptable styles don't disagree with me in any sense.

"No it is not. Church documents do not instruct the faithful to go out and be EMHCs. They do instruct them to learn to sing certain parts of the Mass."
They don't say I *have to* sing though. I actually have a borderline phobia about singing. If it were mandated that I sing at Mass I would quite possibly have a minor anxiety attack before Mass every week.

"Again, long before Vatican II, the church instructed the faithful that they should indeed learn the basic chants of the Mass [i]and sing them[/i]. Not wanting to is really not a great reason not to do so."
Given enough time at the T.L.M. I may get over my aversion to singing and be able to join the chants. However, when attending what is a typical Novus Ordo in my diocese, the music is wretched, and singing it would be, number one, incredibly distracting for me, and number two, compromising to my conscience because I don't want to support such wretched songs.
In case you want an example, Awes[color=#000000]o[/color]me God was used as a recessional in one of the last ones I went to. One of the Novus Ordo Masses I attend as a last resort uses some weird Haas setting as their primary Mass setting. It's not really sacred music.

"It is, however, still encouraged. (And yes, I've been liturgically trained for Traditional Latin Masses)."
Indeed. I would be very happy if I were comfortable enough to sing during Mass.

"If I show up at mass and say "yo, God, I'm here ok?" and sit there bummed that I'm there, HOW is that different from someone who is at Mass and is off in their own world EVEN if that is praying the rosary or something. Neither one of those people is really participating in Mass."
This part is irrelevant and unrelated to anything else I've said in this thread.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331849931' post='2401431']
That would be De Musica Sacra, and I'm not sure why you even asked that because you obviously knew the answer.

Turns out I missed Missionseeker's post to me. I'm going to work on a response now.
The rest was not directed towards me, so I will not address it.
[/quote]
I actually had no idea, but thank you for assuming the worst of me! (Best of me? Thanks for assuming I am more knowledgeable than in fact I am, but you might want to rethink assuming that I am or was or will be mean or obtuse for no other reason than to upset you. In fact, you might consider rethinking all your assumptions about people here at phatmass, about why they do or say or don't do or don't say. Just a suggestion.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1331850504' post='2401435']
I actually had no idea, but thank you for assuming the worst of me! (Best of me? Thanks for assuming I am more knowledgeable than in fact I am, but you might want to rethink assuming that I am or was or will be mean or obtuse for no other reason than to upset you. In fact, you might consider rethinking all your assumptions about people here at phatmass, about why they do or say or don't do or don't say. Just a suggestion.
[/quote]

I thought you quoted it in that same post. Was that a different poster? I was reading a bit quickly.
I didn't imply that you were being obtuse. If we're talking about assumptions, I don't know where you got that one.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1331850504' post='2401435']
I actually had no idea, but thank you for assuming the worst of me! (Best of me? Thanks for assuming I am more knowledgeable than in fact I am, but you might want to rethink assuming that I am or was or will be mean or obtuse for no other reason than to upset you. In fact, you might consider rethinking all your assumptions about people here at phatmass, about why they do or say or don't do or don't say. Just a suggestion.
[/quote]

To be clear, since I thought you quoted from De Musica Sacra in that same post, which I apparently read through too quickly, I didn't know why you were asking me what document it was, so I was legitimately wondering why you did so.