At OLPH
Saturday Mass (8:15AM) (Warm - up at 7:40)
July 2, 16, 30
Kyrie XI
Gospel Accl.
Sanctus XVIII
Mysterium Fidei and Amen
Agnus Dei XVIII
Qui Manducat (7/2)
Introibo ad Altare (7/16)
Adoro te Devote (7/30)
Salve Regina
At Resurrection Church
Saturday Mass (9AM) (Warm-up starts at 8:30)
July 9, 23
Kyrie XI
Gospel Accl.
Sanctus XVIII
Mysterium Fidei and Amen
Agnus Dei XVIII
Introibo ad Altare
Salve Regina
At St. Martin's (Little Sisters of the Poor)
Sixteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time
July 17, 10:30 AM (warm-up at 10AM)
Introit (Entrance Proper) : (schola)
God himself is my help. The Lord upholds my life.
I will offer you a willing sacrifice; I will praise your name,
O Lord, for its goodness.
Kyrie (857)
Gloria (858)
Responsorial Psalm:
Lord, you are good and forgiving.
Gospel Acclamation:
Blessed are you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth;
you have revealed to little ones the mysteries of the kingdom.
Offertory Proper: (schola)
Sweeter are they than honey, than honey from the comb.
In them your servant finds instruction.
Sanctus (859)
Mysterium Fidei (priest)
(all)
Mortem tuam annuntiamus Domine,
et tuam resurrectionem confitemur, donec venias
(We proclaim Thy death, O Lord, and we confess
Thy resurrection, until Thou comest.)
Doxology: Amen
Agnus Dei (862)
Communion Proper: (schola)
The Lord keeps in our minds the wonderful things he has done.
He is compassion and love; he always provides for his faithful.
Communion Hymn: In His Temple Now Behold HIm (609)
Recessional Hymn: Salve Regina (708)
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
Dear P&WPerson
5 days ago @ Chant Cafe - "We don't know why wha... · 0 replies · +2 points
Dear P&WPerson - I became a Christian back in the '70s, as the "Jesus Movement" was picking up serious speed (Remember Explo '72? or are you too young?). We used to sit around in the basement of the Methodist Church where I grew up, singing to guitar music. Later, when the coffeehouse movement got going, I was involved. That venue is actually the birthplace of what you think of as praise and worship music.
Its purpose was two-fold - one to entertain (right there you've got a problem from a Catholic Liturgy point of view) and the other to emotionally manipulate (oh, yeah also a serious issue).
Because it had to entertain, it had to scud the surface to reach the greatest number of people. Coffeehouse geeks generally don't want to exert enough energy to grasp Manly Hopkins' translation of an Aquinas hymn, ya know what I mean? That means a lot of repetition of style, pattern, images, etc. And that is what "banal" means. Go back and look at the old Maranatha! albums/songs - I just had to play Karen Lafferty's "Seek Ye First" for Mass a week or so ago, so they're still floating around. Maranatha! was the #1 source of all that became known as Praise & Worship music.
Now - P&W is RELIGIOUS music, meaning it has religious themes and content... but it is not SACRED music. Its purpose is to entertain, as I said above, while sacred music has far more complex purposes: to turn the mind toward God, to set in the mind that God is Other, and not "our buddy Jesus," to TEACH us how properly to worship (attribute Worth), and in many ways to catechize.
As religious music, it is acceptable for personal devotions. Heck, I still pull out the old Second Chapter of Acts stuff from time to time, even now. But I wouldn't dream of trying to pull even "Easter Song" out for the Liturgy. Religious music is inadequate for sacred Liturgy - which has a universal and eternal quality and character.
Hope that makes sense.
http://www.chantcafe.com/2011/06/we-dont-know-why-what-we-are-doing-is.html#idc-container
Dear P&WPerson - I became a Christian back in the '70s, as the "Jesus Movement" was picking up serious speed (Remember Explo '72? or are you too young?). We used to sit around in the basement of the Methodist Church where I grew up, singing to guitar music. Later, when the coffeehouse movement got going, I was involved. That venue is actually the birthplace of what you think of as praise and worship music.
Its purpose was two-fold - one to entertain (right there you've got a problem from a Catholic Liturgy point of view) and the other to emotionally manipulate (oh, yeah also a serious issue).
Because it had to entertain, it had to scud the surface to reach the greatest number of people. Coffeehouse geeks generally don't want to exert enough energy to grasp Manly Hopkins' translation of an Aquinas hymn, ya know what I mean? That means a lot of repetition of style, pattern, images, etc. And that is what "banal" means. Go back and look at the old Maranatha! albums/songs - I just had to play Karen Lafferty's "Seek Ye First" for Mass a week or so ago, so they're still floating around. Maranatha! was the #1 source of all that became known as Praise & Worship music.
Now - P&W is RELIGIOUS music, meaning it has religious themes and content... but it is not SACRED music. Its purpose is to entertain, as I said above, while sacred music has far more complex purposes: to turn the mind toward God, to set in the mind that God is Other, and not "our buddy Jesus," to TEACH us how properly to worship (attribute Worth), and in many ways to catechize.
As religious music, it is acceptable for personal devotions. Heck, I still pull out the old Second Chapter of Acts stuff from time to time, even now. But I wouldn't dream of trying to pull even "Easter Song" out for the Liturgy. Religious music is inadequate for sacred Liturgy - which has a universal and eternal quality and character.
Hope that makes sense.
http://www.chantcafe.com/2011/06/we-dont-know-why-what-we-are-doing-is.html#idc-container
Monday, May 30, 2011
A Case for Life-Teen Music: Your Response?
Paul Weber
"...but he problem with his thinking is that all religious experience must occur within the context of the Mass. This, as we all know, is untrue. Pius XII gave the distinction between Sacred-liturgical and Religious-recreational music in his encyclical of 1955, and both are good. It's a matter of using the right tool for the right job. Music destined for the Sacred Rites must be appropriate for them by being derived from them, which is how the music achieves holiness and universality (artfulness is another matter). The nature of art destined for the universal Sacred Rites cannot have as its point of reference the individual. This is the problem with the following justification of Life Teen music's supposed liturgically-appropriate holiness:
"Which means the musicians who are going to be interpreting this composition have to have holiness as the center of their life. The people receiving the music have to have a passion to be holy. Sacred music rises or falls in its sacred dignity on whether or not holiness is at the center. Let it be so, because if you start with a holy seed, you’ll get holy fruit. And as music serves the worship, so will it serve holiness if it starts in holiness and is brought by holiness."
It isn't up to the composer, the performer or the individuals of a congregation to determine whether they feel holiness. For that matter, holiness is hardly a matter of objective feeling (that's piety). Holiness is a quality conferred upon the liturgy by God, and through the liturgy to Sacred Art by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through Sacred Tradition. What's wrong with using Life Teen music for extra-liturgical prayer (Holy Hours, festivals of praise, retreats, etc.) and maintaining an elevated form of music and art appropriate for a supremely elevated task: the Sacred Liturgy. Religious music, as Pius XII teaches, is uniquely powerful in moments of catechesis and evangelization among the young and within families, but this does not displace the singular expression required for the Mass. Use the right tool for the right job.
http://www.chantcafe.com/2011/05/case-for-life-teen-music-your-response.html#idc-container
"...but he problem with his thinking is that all religious experience must occur within the context of the Mass. This, as we all know, is untrue. Pius XII gave the distinction between Sacred-liturgical and Religious-recreational music in his encyclical of 1955, and both are good. It's a matter of using the right tool for the right job. Music destined for the Sacred Rites must be appropriate for them by being derived from them, which is how the music achieves holiness and universality (artfulness is another matter). The nature of art destined for the universal Sacred Rites cannot have as its point of reference the individual. This is the problem with the following justification of Life Teen music's supposed liturgically-appropriate holiness:
"Which means the musicians who are going to be interpreting this composition have to have holiness as the center of their life. The people receiving the music have to have a passion to be holy. Sacred music rises or falls in its sacred dignity on whether or not holiness is at the center. Let it be so, because if you start with a holy seed, you’ll get holy fruit. And as music serves the worship, so will it serve holiness if it starts in holiness and is brought by holiness."
It isn't up to the composer, the performer or the individuals of a congregation to determine whether they feel holiness. For that matter, holiness is hardly a matter of objective feeling (that's piety). Holiness is a quality conferred upon the liturgy by God, and through the liturgy to Sacred Art by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through Sacred Tradition. What's wrong with using Life Teen music for extra-liturgical prayer (Holy Hours, festivals of praise, retreats, etc.) and maintaining an elevated form of music and art appropriate for a supremely elevated task: the Sacred Liturgy. Religious music, as Pius XII teaches, is uniquely powerful in moments of catechesis and evangelization among the young and within families, but this does not displace the singular expression required for the Mass. Use the right tool for the right job.
http://www.chantcafe.com/2011/05/case-for-life-teen-music-your-response.html#idc-container
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Do Women Have a Role in the Liturgy and in the Church?
Posted by Revd Fr Christopher Smith
"...There are thus two different sacred powers associated with two different sacraments which were instituted by Christ for the salvation of souls. But they both are intimately related to the sacrificial offering and priesthood of Christ, although in ways irreducible one to the other. These two distinct powers mark the difference between the ministerial priesthood of Christ the Head conferred by Ordination and the common priesthood of the members of Christ’s Body conferred by Baptism. Just as Christ’s Body and Head are distinct, but cannot live one without the other, so too the priesthood and the laity are distinct and cannot live one without the other.
Note that in none of this discussion has the difference between the two types of priesthood been described in terms of function. The difference is not functional, but sacramental. Furthermore the two are not parallel to each other as adversaries, but mutually complementary to such a degree as to be impossible one without the other. Thus we understand why Blessed John Henry Newman, when asked what he thought of the laity, responded, “We’d look foolish without them!” Just as a head would look foolish without a body.
If the Mass is the sacramental re-presentation of the self-offering of Jesus Christ to the Father, the sacramental distinction between ministerial and common priesthood is logical. But once we begin to see the Mass as a sacrifice of praise given by a community to God, it is hard not to transform our idea of the priesthood from a sacramental one to a functional one. Once the functional trumps the sacramental, the ministerial priest becomes one elected among the assembly of the faithful who presides over them by gathering them together and organizing their common prayer. The common priest is then one who participates in any way in such a common prayer. Then the question arises: if the priesthood (common or ministerial) is merely a question of function, Who decides who fulfills those functions?..."
http://www.chantcafe.com/2011/05/do-women-have-role-in-liturgy-and-in.html
"...There are thus two different sacred powers associated with two different sacraments which were instituted by Christ for the salvation of souls. But they both are intimately related to the sacrificial offering and priesthood of Christ, although in ways irreducible one to the other. These two distinct powers mark the difference between the ministerial priesthood of Christ the Head conferred by Ordination and the common priesthood of the members of Christ’s Body conferred by Baptism. Just as Christ’s Body and Head are distinct, but cannot live one without the other, so too the priesthood and the laity are distinct and cannot live one without the other.
Note that in none of this discussion has the difference between the two types of priesthood been described in terms of function. The difference is not functional, but sacramental. Furthermore the two are not parallel to each other as adversaries, but mutually complementary to such a degree as to be impossible one without the other. Thus we understand why Blessed John Henry Newman, when asked what he thought of the laity, responded, “We’d look foolish without them!” Just as a head would look foolish without a body.
If the Mass is the sacramental re-presentation of the self-offering of Jesus Christ to the Father, the sacramental distinction between ministerial and common priesthood is logical. But once we begin to see the Mass as a sacrifice of praise given by a community to God, it is hard not to transform our idea of the priesthood from a sacramental one to a functional one. Once the functional trumps the sacramental, the ministerial priest becomes one elected among the assembly of the faithful who presides over them by gathering them together and organizing their common prayer. The common priest is then one who participates in any way in such a common prayer. Then the question arises: if the priesthood (common or ministerial) is merely a question of function, Who decides who fulfills those functions?..."
http://www.chantcafe.com/2011/05/do-women-have-role-in-liturgy-and-in.html
A Great New CD by the St. Gregory's Academy
http://www.digstation.com/AlbumDetails.aspx?albumID=ALB000077535
Ricardo Mutti on Church Music
Posted by Jeffrey A. Tucker
From Catholic Culture:
The music director of the Chicago Symphony has thrown his support behind the drive by Pope Benedict XVI to revive the tradition of sacred music.
''The Pope is right when he says it is necessary to bring our great musical heritage back into churches,'' said Ricardo Muti. The Italian conductor said that the revival in church music “cannot happen outside the great traditional path of the past, of Gregorian chants and sacred polyphonic choral music.”
Muti said that he has no objection to the composition of new sacred music, but resents the use of pop tunes. “When I go to church and I hear four strums of a guitar or choruses of senseless, insipid words, I think it's an insult,” he said. Offering mediocre music, when the Church boasts a priceless treasury of compositions, shows “a lack of respect for people’s intelligence,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
