Anyone agree with Dr Carroll?
http://www.adoremus.org/1102MassMusic.html
I don't think the choice is supper or sacrifice- its both
Questionable texts?
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
Can't say I've ever used (or heard) any of the texts he quotes.
But to answer the question, definitely sacrifice. This is what makes the Solemn Evening Mass of the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday so special - because the supper elements are more specifically acknowledged. Indeed, in last year's M&L, the writer of the Liturgy planner went to pains to emphasise the importance of baking unleavened bread rather than using hosts (did any readers do this?) precisely because at this mass we are especially remembering the last supper.
We won't be rushing to embrace any of these new texts in my parish.
But to answer the question, definitely sacrifice. This is what makes the Solemn Evening Mass of the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday so special - because the supper elements are more specifically acknowledged. Indeed, in last year's M&L, the writer of the Liturgy planner went to pains to emphasise the importance of baking unleavened bread rather than using hosts (did any readers do this?) precisely because at this mass we are especially remembering the last supper.
We won't be rushing to embrace any of these new texts in my parish.
It's not a generation gap, it's a taste gap.
Would Dr Carroll approve this?
Bread of Angels,
made the bread of men;
The Bread of heaven
puts an end to all symbols:
A thing wonderful!
The Lord becomes our food:
poor, a servant, and humble.
Where Dr Carroll seems to me right is that the texts we sing shape our faith (probably more so than spoken words) and the implication that it is part of the responsibility of the Church musicians (with others) to hand on the tradition in its fullness.
Where it seems to me to being polemical is firstly the expectation that a communion hymn text should contain the whole of Catholic belief in the Eucharist and his seemingly wilful inability to recognise scriptural and traditional references to the Eucharist.
There is a slight catch 22 here, or rather it is symbiotic - we understand the metaphors and reference because we understand the theology but also we understand (and deepen our understanding of) the theology through good liturgical practice of which the hymns may be part.
Dr Carroll's concerns seem, to me, to be reflected in the US Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy presentation on music texts. http://www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/ (it's a PowerPoint Presentation). It was referred to in Bob Hurd's article in Music and Liturgy. I would be interest to know what people think of that - but I'll start a new thread.
And the text at the top - yes, it's Panis Angelicus
Gabriel
Bread of Angels,
made the bread of men;
The Bread of heaven
puts an end to all symbols:
A thing wonderful!
The Lord becomes our food:
poor, a servant, and humble.
Where Dr Carroll seems to me right is that the texts we sing shape our faith (probably more so than spoken words) and the implication that it is part of the responsibility of the Church musicians (with others) to hand on the tradition in its fullness.
Where it seems to me to being polemical is firstly the expectation that a communion hymn text should contain the whole of Catholic belief in the Eucharist and his seemingly wilful inability to recognise scriptural and traditional references to the Eucharist.
There is a slight catch 22 here, or rather it is symbiotic - we understand the metaphors and reference because we understand the theology but also we understand (and deepen our understanding of) the theology through good liturgical practice of which the hymns may be part.
Dr Carroll's concerns seem, to me, to be reflected in the US Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy presentation on music texts. http://www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/ (it's a PowerPoint Presentation). It was referred to in Bob Hurd's article in Music and Liturgy. I would be interest to know what people think of that - but I'll start a new thread.
And the text at the top - yes, it's Panis Angelicus
Gabriel
-
contrabordun
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 4:20 pm
Dr Caroll wrote:most surveys today show that more than half of American Catholics either do not believe in the Real Presence, or do not understand the concept. (my italics)
I'd be astonished if anything like half of them understood the concept. I certainly don't. Given that (as far as my understanding goes) there's no suggestion that the species are chemically changed, I think you need training in Philosophy even to understand what it is you are being required to believe in.
-
presbyter
- Posts: 1651
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:21 pm
- Parish / Diocese: youknowalready
- Location: elsewhere
Real Presence: The Work of Eucharist
~Nathan Mitchell
Liturgy Training Pubns
Paperback - April 1998
I recommend the above for a very readable and concise history and explanation of the understanding of Real Presence in the Church's sacramental theology. Two Aquinas scholars - Herbert McCabe's "God Matters" - Brian Davis' - "The Thoughts of Thomas Aquinas" - (Both Oxford OPs) - for an understanding of Transubstantiation (read in conjunction with the Summa) Of course, also read the Catechism.
~Nathan Mitchell
Liturgy Training Pubns
Paperback - April 1998
I recommend the above for a very readable and concise history and explanation of the understanding of Real Presence in the Church's sacramental theology. Two Aquinas scholars - Herbert McCabe's "God Matters" - Brian Davis' - "The Thoughts of Thomas Aquinas" - (Both Oxford OPs) - for an understanding of Transubstantiation (read in conjunction with the Summa) Of course, also read the Catechism.