tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post4343353830856626953..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: WHO CAN ARGUE WITH THIS VIDEO? ONLY YOUR GUITAR STRUMMING, BONGO DRUMMING, TAMBOURINE JANGLING, PIANO POUNDING CHURCH MUSCIANSFr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-83746390052631719132012-12-25T17:37:13.675-05:002012-12-25T17:37:13.675-05:00Father, you ask an important question: “How would ...Father, you ask an important question: “How would you interpret the following authoritative norm from Muscam Sacram on the use of appropriate instrumentation at Mass?” As a Vatican II related document, Musicam Sacram does indeed lay down an authoritative norm. I am glad we are focusing on the language of the relevant authoritative text. The linked video seems to give one interpretation of that norm. However, I am still perplexed and would welcome some further guidance.<br /> <br />Specifically, the document clearly envisages the use of other musical instruments in addition to the pipe organ “provided that the instruments are suitable for sacred use, or can be adapted to it, that they are in keeping with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.” What would be examples of such instruments, including those that, as the document states, “can be adapted to [sacred use].” On the other hand, what would be examples of “instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music_only_” [emphasis added]?<br /><br />Presumably, in answering these questions, it is necessary to distinguish, as the document does, between appropriate and inappropriate use of permitted instruments, so that one cannot reject an instrument just because it _can_be used inappropriately (which is also true of the pipe organ I suspect).<br /><br />I ask these questions as someone who loves Gregorian chant, pipe organ, and a range of other instruments as well.<br /><br />Merry Christmas to you and to all!<br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-38122156242426008992012-12-24T13:46:47.719-05:002012-12-24T13:46:47.719-05:00116. Ecclesia cantum gregorianum agnoscit ut litur...<b>116. Ecclesia cantum gregorianum agnoscit ut liturgiae romanae proprium: qui ideo in actionibus liturgicis, ceteris paribus, <i>principem locum</i> obtineat.</b><br /><br />Indeed, there is no word in this sentence that connotes "pride" in anyway about anything. The relevant phrase is <i>principem locum</i>, that is, first or principal place.<br /><br />It's hard to seen how the circumlocution "pride of place" could have been anything other than deliberate obfuscation.<br /><br />Just like the mistranslation of GIRM 299, which even in the new translation says the altar should be free standing so Mass can be celebrated versus populum if possible.<br /><br />Whereas the CDW has long since, in answer to a dubium, answered explicitly that the Latin says it's desirable that the altar be free-standing, NOT that it's desirable that Mass celebrated facing the people. About this, Father Z says<br /><br /><i>The continual mistranslation of GIRM 299 is troubling because, even after an explanation from the Congregation for Divine Worship and a certain passage of time guaranteeing the dissemination of information, the powers-that-be in the Anglophone world haven’t made a change. I can only surmise that they are doing this because they are pushing their own agenda instead of what GIRM 299 really says. They don’t like ad orientem worship and are publishing a flawed translation in order to defend versus populum celebration of Holy Mass.</i>Henry Edwardsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-57655372419867153032012-12-24T10:17:49.466-05:002012-12-24T10:17:49.466-05:00"Gregorian chant holds pride of place because..."Gregorian chant holds pride of place because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy."<br /><br />The translation should be "Gregorian chant has first place...." This follows the somewhat official English translation of SC 116. I wonder if these English translations were meant to tone down the wishes of the Council Fathers so as to be in the 1960's "spirit of the council"?<br /><br />Giving Gregorian chant first place in the liturgy, by the way, assumes that Latin would be retained in the Roman liturgy, as SC 36 and SC 101 stated. Indeed, SC 54 states: "Steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass that pertain to them." This is what Pius X meant by "participatio actuosa"<br />Tednoreply@blogger.com