Gwyn wrote:Might we be guilty of applying too broad an interpretation to "...or another chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year," ?
Some places see this as licence to simply have hymn (which may or may not be appropriate).
I quite agree with this.
We all know all of the quotes from pope after pope and all the documents about the importance of chant and yet we still interpret the documents in a way which suits us best and fits into what we want.
JW wrote:As parish music directors, are we guilty of adversely affecting people's worship by imposing our own advanced musical taste?
My initial point, which I admit may have been slightly badly made, was that no-one ought to impose any musical taste of any particular style, but rather that we should sing the music which is already there and provided for us.
How good would it be to show up to a choir rehearsal or Mass and know that everything you were going to need was all there ready and waiting for you? All without the need for anyone in the parish to exert their own agenda or musical preference (relating back to the original purpose of this thread).
Yes, the chants are difficult, but they have been so for over 1000 years. Are we saying that people are too thick to get the hang of them? Were the faithful of the last few centuries too thick also? Are we really saying that to exclude them in favour of more learnable/ singable/ congregation-friendly music is the best way to do true justice to the holy sacrifice of the Mass?
The big danger with allowing people the freedom to choose what they want (for whatever reason they want) is that one style/ way of doing things will triumph over another based solely on those person's tastes/ agenda, thus creating a sort of 'para-liturgy' which is more focused on them/ their own ideas/ their own (mis)interpretation of GIRM than it is on God.
I would rather things were more prescribed and the decisions were taken out of our hands, then our own egos wouldn't come into it. Sorry, radical, I know.