found again

this time, by The Boss. But it's fine, right, because I've never put anything inappropriate in here? so I know that when you type a web address in, it will come up when anyone types in an address if they look at the scroll down menu thingy. (I definitely know this, because I recently came across porn on someone's computer through this method of un-intentional snooping. meh. awkward...) so I knew that would happen if I typed it in at work, but after the recent fiasco, I figured everyone who would ever bother reading mine had found it, so I just typed it in.
ah well, here I go again providing entertainment for the masses.
perhaps someday I shall get back to posting my musings about the liturgy...

post #102-bowling

the topic came up in the office recently of what nice kids my age do to "hang out." I said that my friends and I didn't have many options, and really just watched movies, went to the bar, and went bowling. I then pointed out how I didn't think I should go bowling. I've thought of this as I've tossed the ball down the lane, how there is not a whole lot between that ball and my fingers getting sprained. And how I make my living on my fingers. More so than most people. Fr. G was like, "Oh no, Mara. You are right. I absolutely forbid you going bowling!" well, I guess now I have a really good excuse when my friends invite me out, rather than just, "uh, well, I'm such a klutz, I might break my fingers?" but really, has that EVER happened to anyone? maybe I should insure my fingers.
maybe I should stay in my room all day long and never come out because something bad might happen! argh!

to those guys who (might have) found my blog...

ok diocesan lawyer dude in (fill in name of main city of diocese,) so I guess I know how you might have found my blog, based on a dumb comment that I wrote somewhere else which I now can't delete on someone else's blog...but you also might have found it just by typing in my name on google (because I'm am member of the ban Haugan-Haas club thing, which connects online my name with my blog. sigh.)...although really, I can't believe that anyone would sit there and type in the name of everyone just because they work for a church. good grief.
oh well, because I still stand by my claim that I have never put anything inappropriate in here (while, actually, I may have once, but G pointed out that I should remove it so I did:-) ) but because I still stand by that claim, I suppose the worst that may come out of my blog would be that you get some weird entertainment out of it. (I've been told I write some funny stuff!)
however,
keep in mind that now that I KNOW it really is being read (maybe, although, I must admit, sitemeter has NEVER had anyone from above-mentioned-city listed as reading my blog,) now that I know this, perhaps my blog will grow in boringness. and it will be your fault. no more edgy-borderline gossip. (er, well, alright, so maybe I haven't written that much...)
but life continues.

care in blogging...

so, my boss had a meeting with the diocesan lawyer this morning. And, while I don't know exactly what the meeting was about, he did tell, me first thing when he saw me this afternoon, that since he knows I have a blog, if I have ever written the name of the diocese in it, then they are watching it. Totally fair; I have been warned before that anything you write online is possibly read by anyone. So I was really scared for a second when I thought that entry about our bishop's letter included the diocese's name, but it actually didn't. So I skimmed through my blog to see if I had included references that were more incriminating than "Fr. G" or "St. T." If anyone has noticed anything more specific than that, I suppose you can let me know. And also, I have in the past appreciated comments that suggest I remove a post if it could possibly get me in trouble, so please continue to do so.


Edit:
C told me that she thought Fr. had implied that the diocese HAD found my blog. I just don't know how. Maybe I did carelessly put some information in I shouldn't have. the end.

today's Gospel

I hate how everyone always talks about the Gospel for today (where the rich man "went away sad for he had many possessions" after Jesus told him he had to sell everything). They talk about it as if they know with certainty that he ignored Jesus' advice.
umm...
It does NOT say "the rich man refused to sell everything he had."
it JUST says "he went away sad."
I suppose this bothers me in particular, because I do this a LOT. I "go away sad" when I know I have to do something that I don't really want to do, but guess what? I almost always end up doing it!
and why does everyone just assume the rich man didn't?

It's true.

My bishop has sent a document (by email!) to all the priests forbidding "at this time" (until further notice) the TLM. (with the exception of the 2 parishes he has already permitted it at.)
I read it today.
I feel some sort of obligation to send it to WDTPRS or post it here, but I was given the impression by those who allowed me to read it that it wasn't technically a public document. So, I shall resist hacking into the email account of my boss* in order to do so, even though I'm pretty sure I know what the password is. :-)


*I wasn't quite sure how to make "boss" possesive. or, for that matter, how to spell "possesive."

1974 GR

someone posted this on a thread on NLM a bit ago:

"The Graduale Romanum (1974) identifies seven ad libitum antiphons for communion:
- Ego sum vitis
- Gustate et videte
- Hoc corpus
- Manducaverunt
- Panem de caelo
- Panis quem
- Qui manducat"

I do not have a 1974 GR, and if I did, I certainly don't have enough Latin skills to decipher it.* Nor do I even know what "ad libitum" means. Could anyone explain this, or give a citation in the GR for where I can find this? (If I were to have a schola, and not learn a different communion antiphon every week, would it be preferable to use the "ad libitum" antiphons, or to use some from the Graduale Simplex?)


*yes. I need to learn Latin. I took one semester of college latin, and will never forget my parents for forcing me to take spanish in high school instead of latin, even after I begged them...
but, there is SO often I pick up a book and it has many latin phrases scattered throughout, that a more educated person would understand, or even entire books that I ought to be able to understand, like the GR! (or am I really dumb and is there an English version of that? Isn't that what the Gregorian Missal is? just incomplete?) so anyhow, I just need to get motivated and sit down and force myself to learn this dead language...

alRIGHT, I GET it!

It seems like everyone is telling me to read "The Heresy of Formlessness." I have it sitting on top of my huge stack of books. I've already read the intro, and shall crack open the real stuff later today.
I suppose I'll have to read it to find out why, but some people who have recommended I read it are not total advocates of the TLM.
Seriously, in the past month, I think five totally different people have suggested I read it or said they were reading it. Weird.

post on NLM

This morning, I came across a post on NLM which I keep thinking about. It contained many good points, about things I have been thinking about given the Motu Proprio, especially concerning what to incorporate, and what direction to take a schola in, but I found the comment thread especially to get rather nasty!
As I get to write whatever I want on my own blog, I would like to respond to it.

We are not at a place (as liturgically- and musically-minded Catholics) to make disparaging remarks about any form of chant. (This was pointed out in a post that was made at the same time I made mine, when I was rather fed up with the thread, and the author made his points much better than I made mine, and if I had been able to read his post before I posted mine, I wouldn't have posted mine.)
Anyhow, anyone who is doing anything to encourage vertical spirituality in the Church (the simplicity, sound, feeling, whatever you want to call it, of chant-Gregorian or other-being one of the most unarguable ways to bring this about,) those people ought to be commended. This is not the time to be nitpicking over whether it is less admirable to use a chant that is 300 or 500 instead of 800 years old (seriously, over the 2000 year history of our church, is 300 years all that much?!) or whether a chant is perfectly modal or has evidence of 16th century tonality.
good grief.
my point is just that we ought to be encouraging anyone who is able to use any chant in their church! (I'm not able to use much, and the point of my comment in the thread was that I am jealous of those who are able to claim they are "sick" of hearing Jubilate Deo-because they hear it so much!)
***But really, we must keep in mind-isn't the music of the chant supposed to serve the liturgy? and not vice versa? Shouldn't we be focusing more on the ability of music to lift our souls to God rather than wasting time arguing about its complete purity and authenticity by criticizing those who do not absolutely conform to the Ideal?

Pater Noster

So I first noticed that when I heard the congregation singing the Pater Noster, they weren't exactly following what is printed in the hymnal. (modern notation.) They seemed to be adding pauses and breaths. So, I went to compare what was in the hymnal with the square notes in the GR. (actually, I really wanted to compare it with the semiological neumes in the Triplex, but, alas, there were none...) And I observed that there IS a discrepancy between the two! Either that, or there is the common confusion of "does an episema really mean to hold it twice as long? or does it just mean to accent the syllable in some way? and what about the little vertical dashes at the top of the musical lines? are they just for visual effect? or are you supposed to even take a breath at them?"
For example, right off the bat the "ter" of "noster" has an episema in the GR, but the hymnal completely ignores that and just writes it as a black round note. Same thing at "Panem nostrum cotidianum" on the last "num." And, the people are certainly singing it with a prolonged episema.
sooo...before I try and correct this possible "problem," which is right? Or, the age-old question of, "for how long does one hold an episema?" The hymnal editors must have had some reason to ignore them in their modern transcription!

organ/choir music

I recently came across a catalogue for a company with a bit of organ and choir music. I admit, I was at first initially intrigued because the catalogue was very well designed. (or at least it just looked nice.) I was also intrigued because I had never heard of them. "Kevin Mayhew" or something? They had lots of books that had 50-150 stuff in them, like alternate harmonizations which I LOVE) or preludes on hymns, etc. I noticed that even in all of those hymn names, I would only recognize a couple. I also made the mistake once of buying a book cuz I was impressed with the sheer number of alternate hymn harmonizations, only to discover upon receiving it that I could only actually use very few of them.

So sorry this has been quite rambly. I'm basically just wondering if anyone has any experience with this company's products, and could advise me.

darn, I cant remember which side of the issue I'm supposed to take!

I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with laying flowers before Mary after Communion at a wedding, but I have some vague recollection of recently reading somewhere why we're not supposed to. Any ideas? The only one I can think of is the whole "we don't add things that aren't in the rubrics" reason.
(which, as weddings tend to go, would be the LEAST of liturgical abuses...)

and speaking of which, if I ever get married, I will have an interesting wedding. The priest will definitely walk down the aisle. Myself and my bridesmaids (if I decide to have them-after being in several weddings, they seem so...superfluous!) will walk down to the Gregorian chant proper antiphon introit thingy, sung by a schola of men. The same for Offertory and Communion. ha. and that's just for starters...

(someone asked, "Mara, don't you realize that there will be someone else involved in the planning of this wedding?" my reply? "um, well, if he's marrying me, he's going to know my opinion stands in all things musical, unless he has similar [or better] tastes in music and beliefs about liturgy. [that'd be nice, but unlikely...] I mean, gosh, he can pick the dresses, the flowers, whatever, I don't care!")