Posted on 09/23/2004 5:56:29 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
Correct.
It should be a pipe organ. The Congregation of Sacred Rites specified this a number of times when turning down the requests from the Hammond Organ Company in the late 1930's and through most of the 1940's.
The Congregation of Sacred Rites, however, approved the use of the Hammond Organ @ 1948 if I recall correctly using the "usual excuse" that was employed to sew the seeds for V2 on various and sundry issues: destruction of churches in WW II, lost of male populace, cost of replacement, etc.
This excuse was also used to introduce evening Masses (for the same day) @ 1952, mitigation and lessening of the Eucharistic Fast, and also permitting women in the choir, 12-25-55.
Of course the document never at all addressed Pope Saint Pius X's pronouncement of 11-22-03 that since the choir **AT MASS** substituted for the clergy, it could only be composed of males - the same as for acolytes.
The future Pope Pius X was involved with this issue for over 20 years on various commisions under Pope Leo XIII and as Cardinal Patriarch of Venice in his archdiocese he also banned all women musicians including organists.
Women in the congregation, as were men, were urged to sing, in other liturgical services and devotions such as Vespers, BUT NOT IN THE MASS!!!
P.S. In the preamble of his document of 11-22-03 it is , "actuosa communicatio", actuated communication in uniting oneself with the priest in offering Christ, the Victim, to the Father. It is NOT 'active participation', which commonly appears in the usual intentionally incorrect mistranslations.
This intentional mistranslation of two words in this preamble was used as justification for all that followed in the 20th century.
"OCP and GIA wouldn't take any more of it..."
Based on their website, it appears as if they just took a bunch more of it. Advent and Christmas music a-la-schutte, just what we need.
http://www.ocp.org/en/index.php
Thank you for posting that!
Now before someone who does not know any better claims that you, the church, or several popes are women haters, let's examine the reason for the prohibtion of women in choirs and as musicians.
A choir is properly composed of clerics (or major and/or minor orders), or religious. Lay persons were not admitted to choirs at first, as it was a liturgical office - which properly belongs to men. The use of non ordained men as singers was restricted to seminarians, scholastics, students......hence the developement of the boy choir.
At first the choir sang "in choir" - in stalls provided fro them, either in, or just outside the altar rail - depending on whether they were composed of clerics/religious, or lay persons (boy choirs).
It was only at a much later date that choirs were moved to a read gallery. Why? Because they were exclusively compoased of lay persons, who were not allowed in the sanctuary, and secondly becuase the were placed in the back loft so as not to be a visual distraction at mass.
Their role was liturgical - not that of a concert performance!
So why not women? Firstly - when a choir was located in or near the chancel of a church, women were not allowed in the chancel/sanctuary AT ALL. Secondly, a woman singing in public would have been a cause of grave scandal, as she would be a distraction & possible occasion of sin for the eyes. This is also why a woman was to cover her hair/head in church - humility....and that her glory (her hair) not be a distraction.
Once choirs were relagated to a rear gallery the presense of a woman would no longer be an occasion of sin to men in the congregation (as they were supposed to be looking at the altar). But, she would be a distraction to men in the choir. Also, there is still the problem of a woman holding and exercising aliturgical function at public mass.
The only exception to this might have been in monastaries of women relgious. The would sing their office in common. And if they utilised a choir for daily or Sunday mass, it was of their members.The only male present would have been the priest - and possibly an acolyte from the local parish to act as a server.
The ultimate bases for this is in the fact that Christ did not extend any type of priestly ministry to women. Also, we have the words of St. Paul in his epistles.
My apologies to the ladies....but these are the facts as I know them to be. Besides, a woman had enough work to do in making a home, raising children, and cleaning up after the lazy lump of flesh which is her husband!
The real work of women in the church was that of the teaching of children in the home - of setting their feet on the path of righteousness. That is more then enough work.....and sometimes even superhuman!
Patriarchy? Perhaps.......but who REALLY runs the home? For that, women should get the credit they deserve!
"Secondly, a woman singing in public would have been a cause of grave scandal, as she would be a distraction & possible occasion of sin for the eyes. This is also why a woman was to cover her hair/head in church - humility....and that her glory (her hair) not be a distraction. "
Not to go off topic completely, but I want to add that St. Charles Borromeo demanded that his priests(he was archibishop of Milan and a major architect of the Counter-Reformation)be clean shaven -- for similar reasons. These days, we are obliged to look at all sorts of weird facial fur-growth at the altar -- and I don't just mean the mustached sisters. Satanic Van Dyke whiskers may be popular among pro baseball players -- but on priests, they are just nasty and to my mind signify a deeply inappropriate devotion to grooming in order to stand out, not blend in.
St. Charles Borromeo may well have had one thing in mind when he made the prohibition against facial hair: VANITY.
Indeed, a priest who grows facial hair - and I have yet to meet one who was not meticulously groomed - do spend an inordinate amount of time grooming themselves.
The same might be said to apply to haircuts. I see all too many priests who obviously spend much more money on a haircut then I do. This is that same problem: vanity.
Similar with the abandonment of the habit - for preists and religious.
One rarely sees a priest in a cassock - anywhere - much less on the street. On the day of his ordination he was set apart from all other men. Even if he does not take a vow of poverty, he should be not caught up in maintaining his personal appearance.
He exists to help souls find the way to salvation - not to find Brooks Brothers! The habit has a very good reason: humility, sublimation of the self.
Universal vows of poverty for all clergy would be far better - of material sufficiency. They may have only what they truly need for care of body, and the performance of their duties. They should only own something if it is necessary - and not of harm to their souls.
But as Our Lady said at LaSallette - the clergy have become lax, prideful, and seek only after riches and honors. And that was nearly 150 years ago!
Most folks wouldn't make much of a distinction between the two, they just enjoy singing and believe they're Praising God when they do.
Actually, the main Sunday Mass, pre-Vatican II, was supposed to be a Sung Mass (Missa Cantata) while daily Masses were Low Masses. The "special occasion" Masses would have been Solemn High Masses which had a priest celebrant, a deacon, and a subdeacon and musical accompaniment. This was the ideal. It may not have been the reality in every parish.
Could this mistake be caused by a conversion from Cyrillic into English letters?
I have to confess, I have walked out of Mass when they started singing some sort of folk/calypso nonsense. There is not a single hymn written in the last fifty years that does anything but leave me spiritually drained. I am a traditionalist who faithfully attends the Novus Ordo, but there like here, I find very little charity for orthodox Catholic tradition.
Why would a German's name be written in Cyrillic?
FTM is showing his usual ethnic biases, and in "Der Wanderer" no less. His colored judgement makes him difficult to believe.
I hadn't a clue as to the nationality, it merely sounded slavic. I have seen Doestoyevsky's name spelled several different ways and I assumed it was because of the different alphabet.
The change in the discipline of Pius XII on 12/25/55, also referred to as 'the musicians' Christmas present' formed the underlying canonical changes which allowed altar-girls.
As you know, the change for church choirs was a practical matter; AFAIK, driven principally by US bishops (but it could have been Europeans as well.)
I don't want to really argue, but there are some people out there who do like and do buy Dan Schuette's material. I haven't quite figured out why, but there are people who do like it.
My complaint is that they seem to think this is actually well-written music when placed beside Praetorius or Bach. It's like comparing Danielle Steele to Jane Austen.
The least the composers could do is write music in a tessitura that actualy compliments the voice.
One of the things you need to remember about church music is that it can be very ephemeral and only the best of any one period survives to teach the next generations what music can do in the way of adding to worship. We're witnessing that first hand with the Jesuit stuff. Most of it was (and is) plain and simply badly written and it is (thankfully) going by the wayside. Not much of it is going to survive the current generation because it's just bad, leaving us with the great classics and chant.
Education is the #2 duty of the church musician. I'm acquainted with a large number of them who think otherwise and they are simply wrong.
Nowadays, we call educating the faithful "sharing our gift." Vince Lombardi, the hero for educators, would have called it discipline for excellence.
Another loss following American affluence--the loss of the understanding of first things.
I can point to a few dozens of parishes in Milwaukee which maintained two or three choirs (the adult choir being one, then one or two grade-school choirs) which sang for the Sunday and daily 'missa cantata' prior to 1965.
Milwaukee was unusually blessed, as the godfather of church music up here (John Singenberger) was educated at Regensburg, the home of the last major Church music reform (1880's.)
He stopped briefly in Cincinnatti, then came here and taught at the Seminary, but also was responsible for promoting good parish-level church music programs all around the Diocese. He was also regarded as a 'pretty-good' composer of church music; a good deal of his ouevre is still used in Milwaukee.
Milwaukee had a very active group of parish musicians which met regularly and during every other summer would also have a 3-day seminar; guest lecturer/workshop leaders included Roger Wagner and Paul Salamunovich, not to mention our own Sr. Theophane (Hytrek), OSF.
After 1965, but particularly after the arrival of Rembert, the deterioration in standards and mission was clear. Now we see parish "directors of music" whose BS in Knitting Arts and continuing education in "music" consists of learning about maracas and Bo Diddley hits.
Ah, well.
I suspect the difference comes from the phoneticization of the name across-the-border; not different from the "Auschwitz/Oswieczim" spelling difference.
Schutte has actually written a couple of decent pieces of music. The biggest difficulty with him is that only rarely does he write decent music AND use lyrics which are doctrinally orthodox and unambiguous.
As you astutely observe, this, too, shall pass. His music, like that of others which is 'au courant,' has a stylistic mark--a sort of dispassionate glamor--glossy, but no substance--which cannot endure.
Even Faure's Requiem, as laid-back a funeral mass as there is, had more passion and underlying BELIEF than DannyBoy's stuff.
Why phoneticize a German's name into Polish for American readers?
The only reason this is done is because Poles like to pretend that Veit Stoss (and many other Germans who had accomplishments in what is now Poland) were Polish. To subscribe to such nonesense makes ones credibility and judgement very questionable.
When we get a German Pope, all that will be fixed.
Not to worry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.