Life Teen Mass

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1344897746' post='2467155']
"part of me wonders if we haven't organically developed past them"
[img]http://chirho.me/memes/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Russian-Orthodox-Patriarch-Vader_475350_profile.jpg[/img]
organically developping past the propers is like organically developping past the scripture readings, IMO, they are an intregal part of the liturgical cycle. why not allow an option that in place of the encyclical we might read a relevant passage from a Church Father, saint, or theologian?

I must appeal to Bugnini's argument on this one. The propers can certainly be organically developped (they were, of course, reformed with the liturgical calendar, how organically that was done in the cut-and-pasting of the consillium is up for debate), but I cannot abide by an opinion that they should ever be jettisoned or replaced, any more than scripture readings can be jettisoned or replaced (and before you say that it's different because it's the Word of God, remember that much of the basis for the text of the propers is scriptural, they're just another means of praying the Word of God in the Liturgy)
[/quote]

They, like all other parts of the liturgy, are a development. The propers were not chanted at the Last Supper. I don't have an issue with keeping them or reinstating them, but certainly the place that they now occupy in the liturgy is not as it once was (which, as the documents we've discussed state, is an acceptable status).
Also, a not insignificant number of hymns are scripturally based, as well (even the garbage ones, like "I am the Bread of Life".)

[Slappo]

I have to agree with Aloy on the propers. Saying the removal of propers from the liturgy is organic is like saying the indult to recieve the Eucharist on the hand is an organic development away from reception on the tongue. The propers are still the norm as is reception on the tongue. Both the indult to recieve on the hand and the replacement of the propers with hymns are licit practices, but they aren't organic developments in the liturgy.

[Vincent Vega]

Fair enough, the removal was inorganic. My concern is how organic it would be to try to jam them back in there. I don't have the answer, it's just my train of thought.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1344898682' post='2467171']
They, like all other parts of the liturgy, are a development. The propers were not chanted at the Last Supper. I don't have an issue with keeping them or reinstating them, but certainly the place that they now occupy in the liturgy is not as it once was (which, as the documents we've discussed state, is an acceptable status).
Also, a not insignificant number of hymns are scripturally based, as well (even the garbage ones, like "I am the Bread of Life".)
[/quote]
the Gospel was not read at the Last Supper either.

The Liturgy is what surrounds the re-presentment of the Last Supper and the Sacrifice on Calvary. The lack of any particular liturgical element at the Last Supper or on Calvary does not mean it is not an essential element of the liturgy. (and of course, there are things that are essential elements of the Roman Liturgy and things that are essential elements of Eastern liturgies and those things don't always have to be the same but they make up an essential element of what a liturgy ought to be; like how Eastern Eucharist must absolutely have leavened bread and Western Eucharist must absolutely have unleavened bread, both are essential to their respective liturgies)

And they need not be "jammed back in"--they are still in there. Option 4 simply allows them to be replaced currently; I argue that even when other hymns are sung, it should be in addition to the singing or recitation of the propers, for the reasons the Consillium argued.

It's not a question of whether they've been [i]organically[/i] developped away. They haven't even been developped away, just relegated to the unjust status of "just another option", when in fact they are a deep part of the liturgical cycle of the seasons that the faithful are currently being deprived of.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Aloysius

[BG45]

Patriarch Vader just made me laugh. He can be the right hand man of Emperor Pope:

[img]http://www.clowntownonline.com/stuff/articles/pope%20emperor.jpg[/img]

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1344895429' post='2467138']
The piano and organ are the same instrument in the same way that a golf cart is the same as a semi truck, because they both have steering wheels and a gas pedal.

The organ is a sustaining instrument. As long as you depress a key, a sound will be produced. This is the same way that the voice works. The piano, guitar, etc etc are not. [b]The moment you play a note on them, it starts to die[/b]. This is why they are not as well suited to congregational singing.
[/quote]

Jeez, don't be so emo. Jk, but thanks for the explanation.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='the171' timestamp='1344898435' post='2467165']
Piano is percussion. Organ is not. Same reason why drums don't fit into the liturgy.
[/quote]

Isn't the piano a string instrument? But it's also percussion?

*did not pay attention in music class*

[missionseeker]

It is percussion because the strings are hit with a hammer, unlike with a violin whose strings are bowed (I can't remember if that's the right word or not)

[Ice_nine]

so is a violin permissible?

[the171]

Yes. In moderation.

[Papist]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1344889957' post='2467106']
What's the point of those, Papist? Trying to balance us out?



[/quote]
Indeed. See post #61

[Papist]

Also, to let people hear what some are talking about.