According to Carol Byrne's book Born of Revolution, A Misconceived Liturgical Movement, the original Motu Proprio (in Latin) by Pius X NEVER indicated the people should sing. The word "active" as in active participation never appears in the original Latin but does appear in the Italian translation dated the same day.Yes. So says Dr Carol Byrne. That is my point. But let us forget about the word 'active' and just read what is said here by the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, the one entrusted by Pope St Pius X to put his Motu Proprio into effect. He is here laying down the rules to the clergy of Rome which "BY ORDER OF THE HOLY FATHER", "ALL PERSONS", "ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE EAR". Does it not mean something? I don't think we need to be Latinists to make sense of this. Sean says it is not traditional. But Cardinal Respighi, in the name of the Holy Father St Pius X, in the Pope's backyard says "THE VERY BEST ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITIONS DEMAND THAT THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY OF THE FAITHFUL SHOULD JOIN IN THE SINGING". It makes a mockery of the Church to refuse this. St Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, Archbishop Lefebvre, the great prelate raised up by God to preserve Tradition in this crisis. What is left of the Magisterium if we set ourselves up to judge these great men of God and the Church? "My research", that is what is left...
To understand what His Holiness wrote we need someone familiar with Latin to read the original. What we have access to in various languages was compromised on day one.
I'm only on chapter three but carol obviously did extensive research.
Yes. So says Dr Carol Byrne. That is my point. But let us forget about the word 'active' and just read what is said here by the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, the one entrusted by Pope St Pius X to put his Motu Proprio into effect. He is here laying down the rules to the clergy of Rome which "BY ORDER OF THE HOLY FATHER", "ALL PERSONS", "ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE EAR". Does it not mean something? I don't think we need to be Latinists to make sense of this. Sean says it is not traditional. But Cardinal Respighi, in the name of the Holy Father St Pius X, in the Pope's backyard says "THE VERY BEST ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITIONS DEMAND THAT THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY OF THE FAITHFUL SHOULD JOIN IN THE SINGING". It makes a mockery of the Church to refuse this. St Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, Archbishop Lefebvre, the great prelate raised up by God to preserve Tradition in this crisis. What is left of the Magisterium if we set ourselves up to judge these great men of God and the Church? "My research", that is what is left...
PV-Hey Sean. Yes, I'll grant you that - he doesn't cite any sources. But his letter is no historical study, but rather a practical laying down of rules "in the name of the Holy Father".
What “tradition” does the Vicar general cite??
Obviously, it wasn’t the custom at the time, or he wouldn’t have to convince the faithful how “traditional” it was.
Is he going back to the era of the primitive Church to cite such a custom (archaeologism), as the Holy Week reformers did?
Hey Sean. Yes, I'll grant you that - he doesn't cite any sources. But his letter is no historical study, but rather a practical laying down of rules "in the name of the Holy Father".
Was Pius X guilty of archaeologism and subsequently condemned by Pius XII??? The plot thickens.... !!!
What might have been more obvious in Rome 100 years ago, before the Vatican II revolution, may be more obscure and difficult for us to know now... we should never imagine we have all the sources and are competent to make a superior judgement.
And here is the point with Dr Byrne. She is at pains to demonstrate that St Pius X was opposed to congregational singing. Yet surely she was unaware of this source - the Pope's Roman Vicar, Cardinal Respighi's letter.
Would not these saintly men and Popes who have been given by God to guide us in this liturgical discipline over the course of the last 100 years know better whether this was to the edification of the Church and souls than some modern day liturgical scholar?
According to Carol Byrne's book Born of Revolution, A Misconceived Liturgical Movement, the original Motu Proprio (in Latin) by Pius X NEVER indicated the people should sing. The word "active" as in active participation never appears in the original Latin but does appear in the Italian translation dated the same day.Here’s the reference:
To understand what His Holiness wrote we need someone familiar with Latin to read the original. What we have access to in various languages was compromised on day one.
I'm only on chapter three but carol obviously did extensive research.
Here’s the reference:
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f074_Dialogue_2.htm
2) Was congregational singing an organic development of liturgical practice, consistent over the centuries until it was somehow eclipsed, only to be recovered by Pope St. Pius X?
1) Did Pope St. Pius X really include the word "attiva" in TLS, or was this slipped in later by someone else (and if so, why)?Is the debate over this word really relevant now that it is clear that we are instructed by Pope St Pius X's Cardinal Vicar of Rome:
2) Was congregational singing an organic development of liturgical practice, consistent over the centuries until it was somehow eclipsed, only to be recovered by Pope St. Pius X?
If both those questions could be affirmed, I would immediately abandon all my reservations on the subject (and possibly even if only the first could be affirmed).
Is the debate over this word really relevant now that it is clear that we are instructed by Pope St Pius X's Cardinal Vicar of Rome:
"In order to facilitate so important a work, it has seemed good to us to give a few practical rules to which BY ORDER OF THE HOLY FATHER, all persons are required to give ear.
1. The best ecclesiastical traditions demand that the whole assembly of the faithful should join in the singing..."
This, by order of the canonised antimodernist Pope who dedicated his pontificate to restoring all things in Christ. Where is the debate? Where are the reservations? Is this not necessarily the default position of all Traditional Catholics unless you hold certain facts that it is detrimental to the faith?
Popes Pius XI and XII continued in this vein, and Archbishop Lefebvre, but we will judge them all to have been hostage to the liturgical vandals? Surely that is not a Catholic attitude? I am not about to tell St Pius X and Archbishop Lefebvre that I will not accept their liturgical practice until I have done my own study making sure it is not some kind of modernist novelty, are you?
PS: Supposing it was all as you say, and St. Pius X actually did want congregational singing, you do realize that he did not compel it, right (i.e., the Chuch has always respected the sensibilities of the faithful, and never compelled them to respond in any particular way)?As I say, or as the Cardinal Vicar of Rome said, "which by order of the Holy Father all are required to give ear."? I am amazed you dispute that. It would take some pretty serious conspiracy facts (not theories) to refuse this as being Pope St Pius X's directive. It doesn't sound to me like he is inviting us to follow his liturgical reform if it does not offend our sensibilities, but rather, that he is restoring divine worship according to the will of Holy Mother Church. That the whole assembly of the faithful should join in the singing is the very first rule he lays down after stating that this is by order of the Holy Father. Let the scholars do their work. But let us continue to worship in the way that has been handed down to us until a more competent ecclesiastical authority determines otherwise. Or else we will have nothing but confusion and disunity in the Church. There is enough of that already.
As I say, or as the Cardinal Vicar of Rome said, "which by order of the Holy Father all are required to give ear."? I am amazed you dispute that. It would take some pretty serious conspiracy facts (not theories) to refuse this as being Pope St Pius X's directive. It doesn't sound to me like he is inviting us to follow his liturgical reform if it does not offend our sensibilities, but rather, that he is restoring divine worship according to the will of Holy Mother Church. That the whole assembly of the faithful should join in the singing is the very first rule he lays down after stating that this is by order of the Holy Father. Let the scholars do their work. But let us continue to worship in the way that has been handed down to us until a more competent ecclesiastical authority determines otherwise. Or else we will have nothing but confusion and disunity in the Church. There is enough of that already.
There are no rubrics for the faithful.Hmmm....
It is merely the wish of the Church...
OK, while what St. Pius X had in mind perhaps reflected some kind of ideal, in practice, it was a mistake to promote it and a disaster. OK, MAYBE in Italy, where singing is so much a part of the culture that people learned how to sing before they could even talk ... but in 99.99% of situations, it's an unmitigated disaster. Obviously this is from the 20/20 hindsight of what happened later, and also from a practical (vs. theoretical) standpoint.
Yes, I found it edifying to participate in the chant, especially the psalms and Divine Office at STAS, but in every other place where I found myself surrounded by congregational singing, it was an unmitigated disaster, with 3/4 of the congregation either mispronouncing or even badly butchering the Latin, and even a greater percentage unable to sing on key if their lives depended on it. Some believed themselves to be Pavarotti reincarnated and belted stuff out an extreme high volumes (and many of these types mispronounced Latin and/or got the words wrong and/or were off key), drowning out many of the at-least-adequate singers around them. In every case, it was headache-incuding, distracting, disedifying, and did harm to the dignity of the Mass. Even St. Pius X stated that it would be better to have Low Mass than to have Sung Mass done BADLY, and I've never experienced it NOT done badly outside of STAS. If someone tried to pull that nonsense at STAS, where they sang really loud, off key, were butchering the Latin, they'd be pulled aside and told to stop, to keep it very quiet until they could figure it out and learn how to do it correctly.
In addition, while hindsight is 20/20 and St. Pius X didn't anticipate the coming Liturgical revolution, it was a mistake to promote some notion that the ideal fo the Mass entailed "active" participation from the faithful, rather than primarily spiritual participation. That's precisely the attitude that led inexorably to the Novus Ordo. As one of the articles points out earlier in this thread, the translators of the Latin snuck in the adjective "active" for "active participation" that nowhere appears in the original Latin, exploiting this for later gain.
This is similar to other papal mistakes, such as when Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus made some ill-advised statemets that, when properly interpreted were correct, but then gave an opening for the Modernists to go to town on it to absolutely undermine Sacred Scripture. Or when Pius IX made some statements about EENS that were technically correct, but which the EENS-haters went to town on, distorting and misinterpreting it to undermine EENS dogma. Pius IX himself was surprised and angry about the prevailing (mis)interpretation, but he made a mistake in not realizing that this would happen. Pius XII did LOTS of stuff that were highly regrettable that led to disasters, such as allowing discussion of evolution, opening the door to NFP as Catholic birth control, setting up Bugnini to start the liturgical experimentation, permitting various experimental Masses, such as the "Mass of the Future", permitting Catholics to participate in the first Ecuмenical gatherings, and on and on and on.
So, not only was this an ill-advised step toward the notion of "active [physical vs. spiritual] participation" being essential to or ideal for the Liturgy, but congregational singing is fraught with the danger of not being distinguished from the purely liturgical parts of the Mass that are inherently intended for CLERICS to execute, taking a step towards the whole notion of "lay ministers", where the roles in the Mass were merely different "parts" rather than as public prayer of the Church that were extensions of the priesthood (formerly requiring Minor Orders as a result), leading ultimately and inexorably to this notion of the "priesthood of the faithful".
So, maybe in Heaven, or in an ideal state ... to some extent (without blurring the distinction between the faithful and the clergy), but in practice an unmitigated disaster that the Modernists would also exploit to completely undermine Catholic theology regarding the Liturgy.
OK, while what St. Pius X had in mind perhaps reflected some kind of ideal, in practice, it was a mistake to promote it and a disaster. OK, MAYBE in Italy, where singing is so much a part of the culture that people learned how to sing before they could even talk ... but in 99.99% of situations, it's an unmitigated disaster. Obviously this is from the 20/20 hindsight of what happened later, and also from a practical (vs. theoretical) standpoint.I'm sorry to hear your experience has been such a bad one, Ladislaus.
As a kind of side thought, the Novus Ordo basically makes everyone into an acolyte, making all of the responses, and furiously paging through their hand missals on top of that. You can always spot the newcomers at the TLM, bless their hearts, taking those bilingual missals that many TLM sites have, and trying to follow along word-for-word as though they were at the Novus Ordo. It needs to be explained to them that, no, it's not going to be quite the same, don't worry about following along.On the contrary, what better way to attend Holy Mass than with the very words Holy Mother Church uses? I am no newcomer, and this is certainly my preferred method to pray the Mass.
On the contrary, what better way to attend Holy Mass than with the very words Holy Mother Church uses? I am no newcomer, and this is certainly my preferred method to pray the Mass.
That's not to say there are not other ways of attending Mass as you rightly suggest. I derived great profit in my younger years from reading St Leonard of Port Maurice's Hidden Treasure, Holy Mass which gives a method of assisting at Mass whereby we divide it into four parts, each dedicated to one of the four ends of the Mass/prayer i.e. adoration, thanksgiving, reparation and supplication. However, the very prayers of the Mass fulfill this same purpose, obviously.
This is a quote taken from a 1953 pastoral letter of Bishop de Castro Mayer: "Mediator Dei (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html) insists upon union with the intentions of Christ our Lord and that of the celebrant, and leaves it entirely up to the faithful how to realize this end... All exclusivity in this matter is reproachable."
Pope Pius X was a saint, no doubt about that, but not every decision he made was a wise one. Saints are not infallible.
I don't know much about the Breviary, but it seems to me that his reform was uncalled for and somewhat tradition breaking.
The case here seems to be the same. I don't live among "traditional" Protestants, but it seems to me that congregational singing is a trademark of them. I really dislike when people say the acolite's responses out loud or when they sing along with the choir. I love silence at mass. A sung mass obviously has less of it, but even then, you can get contemplative when you hear the choir at a distance, but not when you have an opera singer belting the Kyrie eleison by your side.
All things considered, it makes much more sense to me if we see the holy Pope's directives as aimed at a particular people at a particular time. He never left Northern Italy a single time on his whole life, as far as I am aware.
I do recall one SSPX priest having to interrupt his Mass and turn around to address the choir: "Would the schola please stop singing"!
Pope Pius X was a saint, no doubt about that, but not every decision he made was a wise one. Saints are not infallible.We all have different temperaments, different sensibilities, different preferences...
I don't know much about the Breviary, but it seems to me that his reform was uncalled for and somewhat tradition breaking.
The case here seems to be the same. I don't live among "traditional" Protestants, but it seems to me that congregational singing is a trademark of them. I really dislike when people say the acolite's responses out loud or when they sing along with the choir. I love silence at mass. A sung mass obviously has less of it, but even then, you can get contemplative when you hear the choir at a distance, but not when you have an opera singer belting the Kyrie eleison by your side.
All things considered, it makes much more sense to me if we see the holy Pope's directives as aimed at a particular people at a particular time. He never left Northern Italy a single time on his whole life, as far as I am aware.
:laugh1:No, no, Ladislaus. Not if you had heard that choir! It was certainly not what St Pius X had in mind and needed to be terminated! It was a cacophony beyond belief...
Of course, I find that a bit uncharitable (and have seen priests do similar) to do it during the Mass. I would just very quietly and kindly take it up outside the Mass. This would be very humiliating to the poor souls in the choir who were undoubtedly trying their best.
Here is some more evidence of the traditional practice from Fortesque's The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy (1912):
"In the Middle Ages it [the Creed] was commonly sung, not by the choir, but by all the people... The excellent custom that all the people should sing at least the creed has lasted in parts of France and Germany and is now being revived. Another mediaeval practice was that while the choir sang the creed the people sang 'Kyrie eleison'."
Also moms giving off a somewhat charismatic vibe.
We all have different temperaments, different sensibilities, different preferences...
However, Pope St Pius X was not talking to a particular people but to the whole Church: "Our present Instruction, to which, as to a juridical code of sacred music, We will with the fullness of Our Apostolic Authority that the force of law be given, and We do by Our present handwriting impose its scrupulous observance on all". Subsequent Popes, before the Vatican II revolution, continued in the same vein. We are not free to reject such disciplinary measures unless they are a danger to the Faith.
Congregational singing is a trademark of Catholics. "He who sings prays twice", says St Augustine.
History is a witness to the fact that a great number of pagans converted and became civilized due to the singing of liturgical chants in the old basilicas, where the bishop, the clergy and the faithful sang alternately the divine praises. In these churches, the opponents of the Catholic Faith learned to know what the dogma of the Communion of Saints meant. The Emperor Valens, for instance, was overcome and fainted at the sight of the majesty wherewith St. Basil celebrated the divine mysteries; the heretics of Milan blamed St. Ambrose that the crowds were fascinated by the liturgical chants, and the same chants moved Augustine to adhere to faith in Christ. Later on in the Middle Ages, almost the whole town would form an enormous singing choir at religious events. The craftsmen, architects, sculptors and even scholars at this period drew their knowledge of things theological from the liturgy, and up till today their inspiration is marked out in their monuments (Pius XI, Divini Cultus, December 20, 1928).
Here is some more evidence of the traditional practice from Fortesque's The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy (1912):
"In the Middle Ages it [the Creed] was commonly sung, not by the choir, but by all the people... The excellent custom that all the people should sing at least the creed has lasted in parts of France and Germany and is now being revived. Another mediaeval practice was that while the choir sang the creed the people sang 'Kyrie eleison'."
Sure, lots of references taken out of context, including the alternating singing, which almost always refers to singing the Psalms and not the Mass per se. As I said, little bits of information are taken (usually out of context) by those with an agenda and woven together into a narrative. Just be careful taking the "findings" of various scholars as fact, simply because they take some quote from a Father or the "Middle Ages" out of context. I see this nonsense being done dishonestly ALL THE TIME. I myself require seeing the full context before drawing a conclusion, because it's easy to be deceived by people who have an agenda.Don't take anything in isolation, but everything together that I have posted in this thread. The only agenda we should have in these matters is that of the Church, not wanting irrefutable evidence to obey the Pope, but wanting irrefutable evidence that he did not say it or that we should not obey. Otherwise we should follow the liturgy that has been handed down to us. We need a very serious reason to go against the Pope as Archbishop Lefebvre said... a danger to the Faith.
We need to be clear about WHAT people are singing and in what context and when, etc. ... before making some claim that there's some categorical God-given mandate for singing.
In fact, various Antiquarianists also try to make these same types of claims about Communion in the Hand where they make assertions that it was widespread in the "early Church" based on a combination of flimsy evidence, assumptions, and an agenda.
And of course, over time, the Holy Ghost in some areas may have improved the Church's discipline, as St. Thomas points out and so does Pius XII in Mediator Dei, where the Pope explains that just because something is found in some allegedly "older" text doesn't mean it's a better or somehow "more pure" discipline and that the current one used by the Church isn't better.
There was some use of "altar girls" even in parts of the Church early on, and we know this because a Pope had to explicitly condemn the practice. Even the "early Church" was not immune to abuses and aberrations, nor were the Middle Ages, etc. ... especially since groups were more isolated. Heck, even today, where communication is great, I've been in various chapels where the Liturgy is rather a mess and their practices have become rather non-standard and aberrant. What would be the case back in the day when groups were even more isolated due to poorer communication and the expensiveness of written books.
But some "scholar" could find some isolated reference to an altar girl in use somewhere ... where it could have been an aberration ... and then extrapolate from that (based on their wishful thinking) that this was a widespread practice and somehow approved of by the Church overall in antiquity ... as I said, finding a fragment of information without full context, adding some fallacious assumptions, and then weaving it into some narrative consistent with whatever agenda they might have.
And, by the way, I see this kind of practice commonly even outside matters related to the Faith, in just secular historical matters, where in that case the underlying agenda for presenting speculation as scholarship and theory as fact happens to be some "scholar" trying to make a name of himself. Heck, we see it all the time in modern science also, where someone takes a tiny bit of information, formulates a theory consistent with those facts, and then presents the theory as if it were proven fact, rather than just as a possibly-viable hypothesis not inconsistent with the currently-known facts. And, yet, most of these hypotheses-presented-as-fact end up being falsifed and invalidated, replaced by the new "truths" within a very short period of time. Yet people take the new one as "Gospel truth" even though it contradicts the previous one that was held with equal certainty.
Yes, I found it edifying to participate in the chant, especially the psalms and Divine Office at STAS, but in every other place where I found myself surrounded by congregational singing, it was an unmitigated disaster, with 3/4 of the congregation either mispronouncing or even badly butchering the Latin, and even a greater percentage unable to sing on key if their lives depended on it. Some believed themselves to be Pavarotti reincarnated and belted stuff out an extreme high volumes (and many of these types mispronounced Latin and/or got the words wrong and/or were off key), drowning out many of the at-least-adequate singers around them. In every case, it was headache-inducing, distracting, disedifying, and did harm to the dignity of the Mass. Even St. Pius X stated that it would be better to have Low Mass than to have Sung Mass done BADLY, and I've never experienced it NOT done badly outside of STAS.My goodness!! It sounds like you're in my parish!! And we're not even in the same country! :laugh1:
My goodness!! It sounds like you're in my parish!! And we're not even in the same country! :laugh1:
Couldn't agree more.
More from Fortesque:
On the contrary, what better way to attend Holy Mass than with the very words Holy Mother Church uses? I am no newcomer, and this is certainly my preferred method to pray the Mass.
That's not to say there are not other ways of attending Mass as you rightly suggest. I derived great profit in my younger years from reading St Leonard of Port Maurice's Hidden Treasure, Holy Mass which gives a method of assisting at Mass whereby we divide it into four parts, each dedicated to one of the four ends of the Mass/prayer i.e. adoration, thanksgiving, reparation and supplication. However, the very prayers of the Mass fulfill this same purpose, obviously.
This is a quote taken from a 1953 pastoral letter of Bishop de Castro Mayer: "Mediator Dei (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html) insists upon union with the intentions of Christ our Lord and that of the celebrant, and leaves it entirely up to the faithful how to realize this end... All exclusivity in this matter is reproachable."
It's far better to lift your mind in prayer while listening to the well-done chant than to move one's jaw. If you think otherwise, then you've been polluted with a Modernist perspective.Why am I not surprised that you would have us follow your opinion rather than the opinion and authority of Pope St Pius X? Are you even Catholic? I certainly agree with you moving your jaw less on this issue.
Why am I not surprised that you would have us follow your opinion rather than the opinion and authority of Pope St Pius X? Are you even Catholic? I certainly agree with you moving your jaw less on this issue.
It's far better to lift your mind in prayer while listening to the well-done chant than to move one's jaw. If you think otherwise, then you've been polluted with a Modernist perspective.
Why am I not surprised that you would have us follow your opinion rather than the opinion and authority of Pope St Pius X? Are you even Catholic? I certainly agree with you moving your jaw less on this issue.Well, that's not very charitable, to say the least!
Well, that's not very charitable, to say the least!Rather, what gives anyone the right to elevate his opinion above the authority of the Church, everyone from St Pius X to Archbishop Lefebvre and everyone in between and all the great liturgists like Dom Gueranger and Dr Fortesque? Some layman understands modernism but they do not? St Pius X directs the whole Church to follow this discipline, but I say it is modernism! It beggars belief that you would defend such an attitude of defiance of Church authority... to say the least!
What gives you more of a right to speak on this matter than Ladislaus???!!!
I have always disliked and rejected congregational singing and the dialogue Mass.Dr Byrne is clearly wrong in asserting that Pope St Pius X did not want congregational singing, that is the very purpose of this thread and all the evidence is there for anyone who wants to form an impartial judgement. This is nothing to do with our own personal likes and dislikes.
Lately I have acquired Dr. Carol Byrne's book Born of Revolution Vol I.
When you read it you'll see the extensive research, wisdom and common sense and what Pope Saint Pius X actually wrote/said and not what some second person, even if that was one speaking for him, said/interpreted he said.
Below is a very brief sampling.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f077_Dialogue_5.htm
I guess my first thought was, “If congregational singing was so traditional, then why did the people need to be told they should be doing it?”
It reminded me of St. Pius X’s exhortation to receive daily communion: It might be a good thing for some, but it definitely wasn’t traditional.
Wait a minute, then why do you elevate your opinions above those of Pope Francis Your Holy Father the Vicar of Christ on earth, the College of Cardinals the Princes of the Church, and all the bishops of the world who have Ordinary Jurisdiction and are Successor of the Apostles?
Doesn't that "beggar belief" as an "attitude of defiance of Church authority...to say the least"?
Wait a minute, then why do you elevate your opinions above those of Pope Francis Your Holy Father the Vicar of Christ on earth, the College of Cardinals the Princes of the Church, and all the bishops of the world who have Ordinary Jurisdiction and are Successor of the Apostles?Did you read the post immediately above your comments?
Doesn't that "beggar belief" as an "attitude of defiance of Church authority...to say the least"?
You are not even following the thread. You just use every opportunity to promote your sedevacantist beliefs whether they are relevant or not.
If you are out in the congregation and know the music, why not sing?
I’m sure the Lord is smiling and pleased with the person who sings off key compared to a choir member who is well trained but not in a state of grace.
I have sang in many choirs since I was a child. I have seen things.
If you are out in the congregation and know the music, why not sing?
I’m sure the Lord is smiling and pleased with the person who sings off key compared to a choir member who is well trained but not in a state of grace.
I have sang in many choirs since I was a child. I have seen things.
I’m sure the Lord is smiling and pleased with the person who sings off keyIf someone KNOWS they can't sing, they shouldn't sing. Singing in church is an act of the liturgy; it's a prayer. Bad singing/off-key is a distraction and takes away from the prayerful-aspect of the music.
If someone KNOWS they can't sing, they shouldn't sing. Singing in church is an act of the liturgy; it's a prayer. Bad singing/off-key is a distraction and takes away from the prayerful-aspect of the music.
You quoted only half the sentence that Viva wrote. You left out the part where she compared the person who sings off-key with someone who sings well but is not in a state of grace.I left it off, because her comment was stupid.
She also said that she's been in many choirs and seen things. I've been in choirs too and seen things too....those in the choir who are not living an honest Catholic life.....far from it.Who cares? Their job is to sing. As long as their situation is not openly scandalous, their state of soul is none of your business.
But maybe all that matters is that they sing well, so as not to offend those around them.Yes, their job is to sing well. End of story.
For St. Pius X, Italian isn't THAT radically different from Latin (at least in terms of pronunciation) that it would present a problem, and, as I said earlier, Italians just seem to genetically be able to sing, even before they learn how to walk.