Hello. This is my first post here. I wanted to talk to someone about mixed choirs at the Traditional Latin Mass. This has caused me a great deal of confusion and has done for the past 8 months at least. Essentially I don't understand why it seems a great many traditional Sung Latin Masses (whether diocesan or SSPX) have mixed choirs, when until just a few years before the Council, they were completely forbidden in the Church. Whenever high voices were desired, little boys were recruited, and the practice of boys singing with the monks was a constant practice that goes back at least to the 4th century. Even though women had always been certainly more competent and capable of singing than boys would have been, still only boys and men were permitted.
To me, it seems completely hypocritical to suggest that servers at the altar must be males because it is a clerical role, when this was said precisely for choristers, yet is scarcely practiced amongst traditional Catholics these days. Surely "altar boys" and "choir boys" both go hand-in-hand? Is it surprising that girls flooded onto the altar as "altar boys", less than 20 years after Pius XII, influenced no doubt by Bugnini, allowed a loophole for girls to sing with the choir, in an emergency when there were no boys to be found to sing? This is in direct contradiction with what St Pius X mandated in his motu proprio Tra le Sollecitudini, in continuity with the entire tradition of the Church.
But if traditional Catholic priests could find no altar boys, would they let girls be altar boys at the TLM, in an emergency? No. There's seems to be so much confusion and disorder here, sadly a fruit of the incredibly confusing times in which we live.
In situations where there were not enough clerics to fulfill these roles, they were permitted to be taken up by laymen, perhaps in the hope these men might themselves become clerics. It is widely recognised that altar serving is prime fruit for the cultivation of vocations to the priesthood, but is forgotten that singing in the choir and acquainting oneself with the liturgical texts had also fostered very large numbers of vocations.
Admitting girls to be "altar boys" simply led to the annihilation of vocations, and continuing to admit girl "choir boys" also destroys vocations because of the importance for men to become familiar with the liturgical chant. It also ruins the camaraderie that males have. Men tend to like talking to groups of men. Women tend to like talking to groups of women. Forcing them both together for a solemn duty in Church, makes both uncomfortable. Alas, this is just a fact of human nature.
I could go on with so many reasons why to me it seems like so obviously a bad idea. This is not to be confrontational but to ask, in all sincerity, why this is such a common practice and why so few seem to see what to me seems very obvious. I have spoken to a head SSPX priest where I live and the head of a local Indult TLM organisation about this issue and they both agreed with me but seem hesitant to want to do anything about this. Perhaps it is the fear of saying "no" to people.
Do you agree with me? I just want to help the Church and labour to save souls, particularly my own, in this one short life I have. God bless. Julian.
Altar girls did not annihilate vocations. You're better off avoiding dumb rhetoric.
Next, it's mostly a practical thing, in my experience. Men have avoided doing the heavy lifting in the churches for quite some time now. Women will fill in the gaps. Not surprising.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
I think you're bang on. As for why, it's a combination of entrenched habits and structures (even from well before V2, if we're honest), feminist attitudes and interpretation of documents, and basically a lot of people just thinking this stuff is comparatively unimportant.
If you (anyone) want to change it, be ambitious but strategic and patient, and above all be more skilled and knowledgeable and organized and hardworking than your opposition. Put the time in and prove yourself. Don't think you can march in, point to a church document, and overthrow the existing mixed choir where, to be fair, some women have invested a lot of time and effort and deserve respect even if they aren't conformed to the letter of the law.
We are only friends here. I am just trying to help the Church in its sore hour of need, and I hope you are too. Having personally grown up as an altar boy having to serve with girls, they sadly ruin the purity of many of the altar boys. Bl. Jacinta of Fatima said "priests must be pure, very pure", and altar girls ruins this for potential seminarians, even priests themselves. Many of the people I used to altar serve with at the NO, no longer even go to Church. This may be for a variety of reasons, but certainly forcing especially adolescent teen males to be around adolescent teen females is a recipe for all sorts of spiritual disorders, even for the congregation, who will have their eyes constantly drawn to young females at the altar. The Popes of the past full well knew this and just forbade it.
I mean. I assume you are against altar girls? I thought this was a traditional Catholic forum. Your last paragraph could equally be said in support of "altar girls", "female priests" and other abominations of these sorts. Should "women fill in the gaps" where there is a shortage of servers, or priests? This is the inherent contradiction that roots in the mind of those ideologically committed to being OK with females in the choir. I assume that post was made in haste and I wish to discuss this in all charity and patience.
Yes Graham. Much patience is required these days when talking about the Church. It is still a great blessing to even have the Faith and to be able to attend a TLM. I too have no disrespect to females who sing at TLMs, many of whom can sing well and want things in the Church to improve. But the traditions of the Church are what they are, and they are what nurtured and cultivated the great Saints of history, both male and female. This seems to basically be a dead end for many traditional Catholics. Either they insist on male choirs or they will probably end up caving in to girl altar boys. It seems to much of a contradiction to last. My personal opinion is that mixed choirs is as close as it can get to a liturgical abuse for the TLM. Your advice is helpful.
Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2017, 11:58:13 AM
We are only friends here. I am just trying to help the Church in its sore hour of need, and I hope you are too.
Duh? I only run the forum and am involved with the local church.
QuoteHaving personally grown up as an altar boy having to serve with girls, they sadly ruin the purity of many of the altar boys.
What? Just... what? You need your head examined then. How did the girls dressed in floor-length white robes 'ruin the purity' of the altar boys?
QuoteBl. Jacinta of Fatima said "priests must be pure, very pure", and altar girls ruins this for potential seminarians, even priests themselves.
No duh priests must be pure. Pretty straightforward. Altar girls don't ruin purity, though. Unless you're some kind of deviant, I guess? And if PRIESTS are "having their purity ruined" by altar girls, holy cow he shouldn't have been ordained. (Maybe the women altar servers by you are all 20-something smokeshows, but whenever I've seen a NO have girl altar servers, it's usually either retiree women or children.)
QuoteMany of the people I used to altar serve with at the NO, no longer even go to Church. This may be for a variety of reasons, but certainly forcing especially adolescent teen males to be around adolescent teen females is a recipe for all sorts of spiritual disorders, even for the congregation, who will have their eyes constantly drawn to young females at the altar.
Maybe them not going to church is a function of serving with you. :^)
You honestly sound like you have some sort of sexual problem.
QuoteThe Popes of the past full well knew this and just forbade it.
So, were women forbidden from the altar because men couldn't help but check out the altar girls, or is it because altar serving is a task designed for clerics?
QuoteI mean. I assume you are against altar girls?
Yeah. I'm also against altar boys. ;D
QuoteI thought this was a traditional Catholic forum.
Oh gosh, one of you people. "Someone expressed anything but full support for my opinion and now this whole forum isn't even a tradCath forum. Do you even trad'dom?" Please. Registered a few weeks ago, 2nd post is questioning this being a traddy forum. C'mon.
QuoteYour last paragraph could equally be said in support of "altar girls", "female priests" and other abominations of these sorts.
I mean, not really? One, in the last couple decades, has been reduced to a purely functionary level. This is what happens when you reduce things down to just the laity. Whereas there's a pretty clear divine dictation that womynprysts aren't allowed. Your rhetoric is lazy and sloppy.
QuoteShould "women fill in the gaps" where there is a shortage of servers, or priests? This is the inherent contradiction that roots in the mind of those ideologically committed to being OK with females in the choir.
So a server is at the level of a priest now? C'mon. Now, if you wanna start saying that the minor orders should be restored, and liturgical servers should be clerics again, I can get on behind that. (But then you'll have to reduce/get rid of muh altar boys and muh future seminarians). But that's not really what you seem to be saying.
QuoteI assume that post was made in haste
It wasn't.
Quoteand I wish to discuss this in all charity and patience.
I doubt that.
Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2017, 12:36:02 PM
Yes Graham. Much patience is required these days when talking about the Church. It is still a great blessing to even have the Faith and to be able to attend a TLM. I too have no disrespect to females who sing at TLMs, many of whom can sing well and want things in the Church to improve. But the traditions of the Church are what they are, and they are what nurtured and cultivated the great Saints of history, both male and female. This seems to basically be a dead end for many traditional Catholics. Either they insist on male choirs or they will probably end up caving in to girl altar boys. It seems to much of a contradiction to last. My personal opinion is that mixed choirs is as close as it can get to a liturgical abuse for the TLM. Your advice is helpful.
Does the bolded imply that you can't abuse the TLM? O.o
Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2017, 11:07:34 AM
Hello. This is my first post here.
Started off with a bang.
Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2017, 11:07:34 AM
This is not to be confrontational but to ask, in all sincerity, why this is such a common practice
Influence of Protestantism. Does a 90% female choir at a TLM look any different from the similar choir at your local protestant denomination? Well I guess today's TLM choir looks just like a Protestant choir from the first half of the 20th century, so we're behind the times but catching up.
Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2017, 11:07:34 AM
Do you agree with me?
Yes, absolutely.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 11:23:41 AM
Altar girls did not annihilate vocations. You're better off avoiding dumb rhetoric.
Really? I would call that simply stating the obvious.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 11:23:41 AM
Next, it's mostly a practical thing, in my experience. Men have avoided doing the heavy lifting in the churches for quite some time now. Women will fill in the gaps. Not surprising.
I think you have reversed the chicken and the egg. Men have been driven out of the churches for many decades now. Once something becomes a female thing, then men and boys will refuse to have anything to do with it. So once you allow females into the choir, then men will flee. And it will become a totally different thing than what it used to be.
Quote from: Maximilian on April 22, 2017, 02:30:41 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 11:23:41 AM
Altar girls did not annihilate vocations. You're better off avoiding dumb rhetoric.
Really? I would call that simply stating the obvious.
Really? You wouldn't blame things like rampant Modernism, vocation directors/seminary rectors/bishops rejecting orthodox men from seminary, those same letting the queers have a free-for-all, or a hatred for tradition, but rather altar girls for annihilating vocations? O.o In the hierarchy of "this causes a problem", "girls at the altar" pales!
QuoteQuote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 11:23:41 AM
Next, it's mostly a practical thing, in my experience. Men have avoided doing the heavy lifting in the churches for quite some time now. Women will fill in the gaps. Not surprising.
I think you have reversed the chicken and the egg. Men have been driven out of the churches for many decades now. Once something becomes a female thing, then men and boys will refuse to have anything to do with it. So once you allow females into the choir, then men will flee. And it will become a totally different thing than what it used to be.
Men have been driven out only insofar as they're willing to be driven out. The Church was run and is still run exclusively by men. You can't tell me it's the fault of women. Makes no sense.
Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2017, 11:07:34 AM
Do you agree with me? I just want to help the Church and labour to save souls, particularly my own, in this one short life I have. God bless. Julian.
I agree with you that there should not be mixed choirs. I do not, however, feel as strongly about the issue as you seem to. I have no problem understanding why priests would not make this their top priority among all the needs in the Church right now. I wouldn't either.
Perhaps the sense of urgency that you appear to be experiencing around this issue is a sign that you are being called to take some sort of action. I think you will be disappointed if you expect all trads to share in your feelings about this. People, even those who agree with you, are going to choose their battles. They may make different choices than your own.
Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2017, 11:07:34 AMAdmitting girls to be "altar boys" simply led to the annihilation of vocations
It could be read to mean that altar girls are the sole cause of vocations falling off a cliff, but I doubt it was intended to mean that. Let's say it contributed.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 02:45:00 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on April 22, 2017, 02:30:41 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 11:23:41 AM
Altar girls did not annihilate vocations. You're better off avoiding dumb rhetoric.
Really? I would call that simply stating the obvious.
Really? You wouldn't blame things like rampant Modernism, vocation directors/seminary rectors/bishops rejecting orthodox men from seminary, those same letting the queers have a free-for-all, or a hatred for tradition, but rather altar girls for annihilating vocations? O.o In the hierarchy of "this causes a problem", "girls at the altar" pales!
You can start your own thread to talk about the role played by "rampant Modernism, vocation directors/seminary rectors/bishops rejecting orthodox men from seminary" in reducing vocations. I'm sure they played a part. But this thread is about females participating in clerical roles. That also played a part, a very major part. Look at the protestant churches with female pastors. No self-respecting male would even set foot in the building. The conciliar church is following that trend not only with altar girls and female choirs, but with female "pastoral administrators."
Once men decide that something is a female activity, participation by males rapidly drops to zero. Consider the example of cheerleaders. Once they were all men. Then females were introduced. Now it is a virtually all female activity.
The same is true even of names. "Lesley" used to be a man's name not that long ago. It's hard to imagine naming a boy "Lesley" today.
Quote from: Jayne on April 22, 2017, 02:51:39 PM
I have no problem understanding why priests would not make this their top priority among all the needs in the Church right now. I wouldn't either.
I think that is a mistake. Female choirs drive men out of the church. I see it happening at the two traditional parishes that I attend. A pastor who thinks this isn't a serious issue will not be able to understand why his parish never grows.
The above is a practical consideration, but there are also more fundamental reasons why this is not a peripheral issue.
1. The teaching of Pope St. Pius X. All traditional parishes with female choirs are violating the teachings established in
Tra le sollecitudini. Every violation of such traditional norms seems like a small thing at first. They never appear big enough to be worth fighting about. But ultimately they lead to the death of the enterprise.
2. A restoration of true traditional Catholicism would not look like the failed experiments of the 1950's, but rather like the vigorous, virile religion of the middle ages, a time when you had thousands of men in monasteries all across Europe chanting the liturgy of the hours and further thousands of men performing the world's most beautiful music in hundreds more cathedrals. This was a serious activity and a true profession, in addition to being a vocation. As long as we are satisfied with amateur choirs of parish females singing vernacular hymns during Mass, we are not making any progress in returning to a traditional Catholic practice.
I could be completely wrong here (because I'll admit I don't know anything about it), but I'm under the impression that women are only forbidden from singing the propers and the versicles (because the propers and the versicles are priestly, thus on a higher level liturgically and reserved for the schola). But the hymns and the responses are to be sung by the congregation, and the women are part of the congregation, so I don't see why it's not ok?
edit - I'm also under the impression that women are allowed to sing even the propers when the occasion calls for it. I was once at a SSPX Mass and the nuns sang the propers and I think the versicles (not sure why... I guess the schola couldn't do it that day for some reason). I asked a priest about it afterwards, and (if I understood him correctly) he told me that the reason that the nuns were allowed to do that is because the singing isn't strictly a "liturgical" function so it's not forbidden. (He did say that the nuns would not have been allowed to serve the Mass as servers, since hat is strictly liturgical and is forbidden.)
Quote from: Daniel on April 22, 2017, 04:06:20 PM
I could be completely wrong here (because I'll admit I don't know anything about it), but I'm under the impression that women are only forbidden from singing the propers and the versicles (because the propers and the versicles are priestly, thus on a higher level liturgically and reserved for the schola). But the hymns and the responses are to be sung by the congregation, and the women are part of the congregation, so I don't see why it's not ok?
That's all a given.
Quote from: Daniel on April 22, 2017, 04:06:20 PM
I could be completely wrong here (because I'll admit I don't know anything about it), but I'm under the impression that women are only forbidden from singing the propers and the versicles (because the propers and the versicles are priestly, thus on a higher level liturgically and reserved for the schola). But the hymns and the responses are to be sung by the congregation, and the women are part of the congregation, so I don't see why it's not ok?
edit - I'm also under the impression that women are allowed to sing even the propers when the occasion calls for it. I was once at a SSPX Mass and the nuns sang the propers and I think the versicles (not sure why... I guess the schola couldn't do it that day for some reason). I asked a priest about it afterwards, and (if I understood him correctly) he told me that the reason that the nuns were allowed to do that is because the singing isn't strictly a "liturgical" function so it's not forbidden. (He did say that the nuns would not have been allowed to serve the Mass as servers, since hat is strictly liturgical and is forbidden.)
In practice, women are permitted anyway in traditional Latin Masses to sing the propers with the men. This is sadly the reality of the slide that happens once you allow a "loophole" in. The "loophole mentality" has done much damage to so many souls in the Church. One thinks of the "loophole" of Paul VI "allowing" communion in the hand as an indult somewhere in America, then suddenly it has become an almost universal practice, because "it's allowed". Very little thought at all as to the theology of what is being done. Same thing with mixed choirs. It "was allowed", therefore pretty much every choir is a mixed choir.
Nuns were, as far as I know, always given a special dispensation to sing in their convents as part of their monastic duty. Nevertheless female choirs are not mixed choirs and were only permitted in convents, not main parish churches.
Congregational singing is a separate issue, although linked in some ways. I am not against it completely but believe it has led in some way to mixed choirs. It was Pius X himself who re-encouraged congregational singing in the same motu propio. The reason Pius X re-permitted congregational singing was because there is no doubt that it was present in the Early Church and his encouragement of this was based in part on a desire to return to an ancient practice that bore fruit at that time. Perhaps it was also to encourage the traditional and elegant simplicity of Gregorian Chant amongst the people at a time when opera-style complex polyphonies were beginning to dominate in Italian Churches.
However congregational singing in the Early Church was stopped at the Council of Laodicea in the 4th century and was not officially re-permitted until Pope St Pius X re-encouraged it again in the 20th century. The main problem then, as is now, was that it only takes one person in the congregation singing out of tune to distort the chant into a cacophany (this happens regularly even now, particularly at requiems, less often with sporadically used mass settings during the week). To be honest, many people who go to Church just want to be left to pray in peace and not feel forced to sing, one of the benefits of the Low Mass. People also feel discouraged from joining the choir because they can sing from the pew. The world-class choirs that used to be common in many Churches become all the more difficult with these sorts of things. And, on top of all this, females then think, "I can sing from the pew, why can't I sing in the choir?"
I think if Pius X saw that congregational singing might have contributed to mixed choirs, he would have stopped congregational singing, not permitted mixed choirs. He strictly forbade mixed choirs, but only said regarding congregational singing "special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people".
The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1908 speaks of there existing what the writers describe as a "present lamentable silence of our congregations", four years after Pius X's motu proprio. If only they had the benefit of hindsight and could see "full participation" in the NO, perhaps they might truly know what was lamentable.
Link here for more info: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04241a.htm
It bruises my heart in many ways to almost assume an authority I don't even have in speaking about these issues in such a manner that few others might. Many months have been spent thinking about this. But this is all worth it, to labour for what will save the most souls in Our Lord's Church, and to go back to tradition to see how the Saints did things right. Hope this helps.
The distinction between congregational singing of ordinaries and hymns and a choir exercising a liturgical function is abundantly clear. Not every slippery slope argument is a fallacy, but that one is.
Quote from: Graham on April 22, 2017, 05:20:39 PM
The distinction between congregational singing of ordinaries and hymns and a choir exercising a liturgical function is abundantly clear. Not every slippery slope argument is a fallacy, but that one is.
OP is full of half-baked opinion being passed off as truth, fact, or liturgical law/custom.
Quote from: Graham on April 22, 2017, 05:20:39 PM
The distinction between congregational singing of ordinaries and hymns and a choir exercising a liturgical function is abundantly clear. Not every slippery slope argument is a fallacy, but that one is.
I would respond that both are singing in churches at Mass. Many people would think that the only reason the congregation don't sing the propers is because it's slightly too complicated for them, not for any liturgical reason. Though congregational singing of even the propers happens, particularly at requiems. You'll find lots know how to sing the Introit Requiem Aeternam, as well as the Sequence Dies Irae, both propers. The distinctions then become completely blurred in the minds of the congregation and the mediocrity of choirs at the TLM is allowed to carry on.
Yes, it does cause some discomfort for me to say these things and perhaps for you too to listen to them. But who is there to say these things and ask these questions if I do not do so? This is ultimately what comes to my mind. When I think of all the saints nurtured through the traditional practice on this issue, both males and females, that causes me great comfort.
Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2017, 05:34:52 PM
But who is there to say these things and ask these questions if I do not do so?
:lol:
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 05:28:22 PM
Quote from: Graham on April 22, 2017, 05:20:39 PM
The distinction between congregational singing of ordinaries and hymns and a choir exercising a liturgical function is abundantly clear. Not every slippery slope argument is a fallacy, but that one is.
OP is full of half-baked opinion being passed off as truth, fact, or liturgical law/custom.
I think he's got a lot of it down cold, tbf, but yes he is turning out to be one of these fellows who doesn't know where to draw the line.
Quote from: Graham on April 22, 2017, 05:46:31 PM
I think he's got a lot of it down cold, tbf, but yes he is turning out to be one of these fellows who doesn't know where to draw the line.
I mean, I agree, choirs ought to be male-only.
But his reasoning his just... off the walls.
Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2017, 05:34:52 PM
Quote from: Graham on April 22, 2017, 05:20:39 PM
The distinction between congregational singing of ordinaries and hymns and a choir exercising a liturgical function is abundantly clear. Not every slippery slope argument is a fallacy, but that one is.
I would respond that both are singing in churches at Mass. Many people would think that the only reason the congregation don't sing the propers is because it's slightly too complicated for them, not for any liturgical reason. Though congregational singing of even the propers happens, particularly at requiems. You'll find lots know how to sing the Introit Requiem Aeternam, as well as the Sequence Dies Irae, both propers. The distinctions then become completely blurred in the minds of the congregation and the mediocrity of choirs at the TLM is allowed to carry on.
Yes, it does cause some discomfort for me to say these things and perhaps for you too to listen to them. But who is there to say these things and ask these questions if I do not do so? This is ultimately what comes to my mind. When I think of all the saints nurtured through the traditional practice on this issue, both males and females, that causes me great comfort.
Julian, your "Catholic sense" is quite correct in being concerned about this!
The choir is a "liturgical" function, and should be all males, particularly boys. Females are allowed (by St. Pius X as well) but only by a temporary tolerance since this function is not in view of the congregation....AND only in case there is not enough males to be in the choir. A "temporary tolerance" entails that the WHOLE congregation of parishioners knows that what is being done is TEMPORARY and that everyone should be working to stop it and get it RIGHT... as soon as possible!
Today, they are allowing it everywhere casually, and the congregation of parishioners thinks it is normal....this is an abuse, and it's preventing male vocations to the priesthood and brotherhood. It is a serious subject.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 05:39:05 PM
Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2017, 05:34:52 PM
But who is there to say these things and ask these questions if I do not do so?
:lol:
God bless you too friend. Just trying to help souls in this very very short life. I'm perfectly ready to overlook the sadly condescending attitude you've had towards me, unlike everyone else, and forgive you for it. It's not very welcoming, I have to say. You could have just said you disagreed with me and explained why.
Well it seems I may be getting the cold shoulder even amongst fellow traditional Catholics. What was considered liturgically excellent in 1900 is something that seems to be mocked today, even amongst traditional Catholics. I pray you think about it. It took many months for me to reach these conclusions about things.
I always assumed mixed choirs were the norm of the Church until I heard of Pius X's motu proprio 8 months ago. Will probably go to bed soon. God bless.
Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2017, 05:57:27 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 05:39:05 PM
Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2017, 05:34:52 PM
But who is there to say these things and ask these questions if I do not do so?
:lol:
God bless you too friend. Just trying to help souls in this very very short life. I'm perfectly ready to overlook the sadly condescending attitude you've had towards me, unlike everyone else, and forgive you for it. It's not very welcoming, I have to say. You could have just said you disagreed with me and explained why.
Well it seems I may be getting the cold shoulder even amongst fellow traditional Catholics. What was considered liturgically excellent in 1900 is something that seems to be mocked today, even amongst traditional Catholics. I pray you think about it. It took many months for me to reach these conclusions about things.
I always assumed mixed choirs were the norm of the Church until I heard of Pius X's motu proprio 8 months ago. Will probably go to bed soon. God bless.
Julian, please read my last post.
Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 22, 2017, 05:52:57 PM
The choir is a "liturgical" function, and should be all males, particularly boys.
[Citation Needed]
Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2017, 05:57:27 PM
Well it seems I may be getting the cold shoulder even amongst fellow traditional Catholics. What was considered liturgically excellent in 1900 is something that seems to be mocked today, even amongst traditional Catholics.
Posting activity goes up and down. You can see such in the stats feature of this forum. That people don't instantly post to your thread shouldn't be taken as a personal affront (or as a lack of interest by the forum).
Who is mocking an all-male choir? I'm just mocking your terrible reasoning and some of your conclusions.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 05:49:10 PM
Quote from: Graham on April 22, 2017, 05:46:31 PM
I think he's got a lot of it down cold, tbf, but yes he is turning out to be one of these fellows who doesn't know where to draw the line.
I mean, I agree, choirs ought to be male-only.
Right, you've always been on the right side of this argument, since we have often agreed in the past on this question. So I'm surprised that you have this random-seeming, rather violent animosity towards this particular poster.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 05:49:10 PM
But his reasoning his just... off the walls.
Since we agree on the basic question, I really don't see anything particularly bizarre about the line of reasoning that he proposed.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 06:02:32 PM
Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 22, 2017, 05:52:57 PM
The choir is a "liturgical" function, and should be all males, particularly boys.
[Citation Needed]
Read the document by St. Pius X, and you will see what I am saying.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 06:04:30 PM
Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2017, 05:57:27 PM
Well it seems I may be getting the cold shoulder even amongst fellow traditional Catholics. What was considered liturgically excellent in 1900 is something that seems to be mocked today, even amongst traditional Catholics.
Posting activity goes up and down. You can see such in the stats feature of this forum. That people don't instantly post to your thread shouldn't be taken as a personal affront (or as a lack of interest by the forum).
Who is mocking an all-male choir? I'm just mocking your terrible reasoning and some of your conclusions.
You have, in my opinion, been very sarcastic and mocking thus far, accusing me of "a sexual problem" and all sorts. St Francis de Sales tells us in his Introduction to the Devout Life: "To become a scoffer is one of the worst states in which a mind can be. God detests this vice and has in past times inflicted strange punishments on it. Nothing is so opposed to charity, and much more to devotion, as despising and contemning our neighbour. Derision and mockery are never without scoffing. Therefore it is an exceedingly great sin, so that divines consider it is one of the worst offences of which a man can be guilty against his neighbour by means of words."
We must avoid this at all costs. I will go to sleep now but again God bless.
Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 22, 2017, 05:52:57 PM
A "temporary tolerance" entails that the WHOLE congregation of parishioners knows that what is being done is TEMPORARY and that everyone should be working to stop it and get it RIGHT... as soon as possible!
This is a good point and a necessary distinction. You can know that a practice has slipped from "temporary necessity" to "liturgical abuse" when people have forgotten that it ever was only a temporary concession -- like using "extraordinary ministers of the eucharist."
Suffice is to say, that there NEEDS to be a general URGENCY in every traditional parish, to have all-male choirs...or else have no choir. That is the mind of the Church!
I can't help but approach this question from a more "ecumenical" standpoint, and I'm sure my opinion is a minority one. Setting aside for a moment the particular legislation of the Roman Church on this point, examination of the whole Catholic Church, not just the Roman rite, reveals that women have been part of choirs for centuries.
In most places, there was historically a division of the sexes, women and children on one side, men on the other; thus, a mixed choir in the modern sense did not exist. But there were certainly women's choirs that sang certain hymns during liturgies. St. Ephrem the Syrian, no Modernist he, was known to compose hymns specifically for women for use during the services; a particular form of Middle Eastern hymn is in the form of a dialogue, and often the men and women's choirs would alternate. The Eastern Churches today, Catholic as well as Orthodox, pretty much across the board allow women to sing, even at the kliros (the place for the liturgical choir); Armenian women at kliros even wear a stikharion. Even Old Believer Russian Orthodox have women singing at the kliros (though this is not universal).
But they all allow women in the choir if the alternative is not having a choir, and I think this is the situation many TLM communities find themselves in. My only point is that the liturgical function of the choir is not "liturgical" in the same sense as those in orders, obviously, and not even the same as those who serve at the altar (I agree that female altar servers are inappropriate at any time). Choirs developed, after all, to lead the people in making the responses once the music became formalized and more complex; they only replaced congregational responses over time, and they did not totally take over everywhere.
Would it be preferable to have all-male choirs in the TLM? Sure; the music of the Roman Church for centuries presupposed male voices, so that makes sense. But that requires TLM communities to be larger and more men to participate. That said, it is not of the divine law that women cannot sing in the choir, and I think the reality of the modern world requires women in the choir. St. Pius X's legislation was written in very different circumstances, when every Roman rite parish in the world celebrated the (real) TLM. A "no choir is better than a mixed choir, Low Mass all the time" mentality is a perfect recipe for making sure TLM communities remain ghettoized in the larger Church.
Quote from: aquinas138 on April 22, 2017, 06:34:00 PM
I can't help but approach this question from a more "ecumenical" standpoint, and I'm sure my opinion is a minority one. Setting aside for a moment the particular legislation of the Roman Church on this point, examination of the whole Catholic Church, not just the Roman rite, reveals that women have been part of choirs for centuries.
In most places, there was historically a division of the sexes, women and children on one side, men on the other; thus, a mixed choir in the modern sense did not exist. But there were certainly women's choirs that sang certain hymns during liturgies. St. Ephrem the Syrian, no Modernist he, was known to compose hymns specifically for women for use during the services; a particular form of Middle Eastern hymn is in the form of a dialogue, and often the men and women's choirs would alternate. The Eastern Churches today, Catholic as well as Orthodox, pretty much across the board allow women to sing, even at the kliros (the place for the liturgical choir); Armenian women at kliros even wear a stikharion. Even Old Believer Russian Orthodox have women singing at the kliros (though this is not universal).
But they all allow women in the choir if the alternative is not having a choir, and I think this is the situation many TLM communities find themselves in. My only point is that the liturgical function of the choir is not "liturgical" in the same sense as those in orders, obviously, and not even the same as those who serve at the altar (I agree that female altar servers are inappropriate at any time). Choirs developed, after all, to lead the people in making the responses once the music became formalized and more complex; they only replaced congregational responses over time, and they did not totally take over everywhere.
Would it be preferable to have all-male choirs in the TLM? Sure; the music of the Roman Church for centuries presupposed male voices, so that makes sense. But that requires TLM communities to be larger and more men to participate. That said, it is not of the divine law that women cannot sing in the choir, and I think the reality of the modern world requires women in the choir. St. Pius X's legislation was written in very different circumstances, when every Roman rite parish in the world celebrated the (real) TLM. A "no choir is better than a mixed choir, Low Mass all the time" mentality is a perfect recipe for making sure TLM communities remain ghettoized in the larger Church.
You overlooked that there can be divine law that females in the choir should be only tolerated temporarily in view of removing them as soon as possible.
Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 22, 2017, 06:14:46 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 06:02:32 PM
Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 22, 2017, 05:52:57 PM
The choir is a "liturgical" function, and should be all males, particularly boys.
[Citation Needed]
Read the document by St. Pius X, and you will see what I am saying.
I mean, it shouldn't be that hard to provide a citation saying that choirs should be particularly boys....
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 07:01:00 PM
Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 22, 2017, 06:14:46 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 06:02:32 PM
Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 22, 2017, 05:52:57 PM
The choir is a "liturgical" function, and should be all males, particularly boys.
[Citation Needed]
Read the document by St. Pius X, and you will see what I am saying.
I mean, it shouldn't be that hard to provide a citation saying that choirs should be particularly boys....
As I said, read what St. Pius X wrote, and the spirit of it is to exclude females.
Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 22, 2017, 07:02:53 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 07:01:00 PM
I mean, it shouldn't be that hard to provide a citation saying that choirs should be particularly boys....
As I said, read what St. Pius X wrote, and the spirit of it is to exclude females.
I guess it is that hard....
:shrug:
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 07:13:08 PM
Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 22, 2017, 07:02:53 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 07:01:00 PM
I mean, it shouldn't be that hard to provide a citation saying that choirs should be particularly boys....
As I said, read what St. Pius X wrote, and the spirit of it is to exclude females.
I guess it is that hard....
:shrug:
??? Please explain.
Hello, Julian. Some posters here know that I manage a traveling all-male schola of chanters, and that I've advocated for the return of all-male choirs for many, many years now. I wrote about it in a blog post from 2014 after attending a concert by the Westminster Abbey Choir: http://modernmedievalism.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-weekend-in-dallas-why-we-need.html
The principles at hand are these:1.) Choir and altar service are both, as you say, related. The Roman Rite presupposes that both are made up of clerics or at least men who could potentially be clerics. Indeed, altar servers for the TLM typically wear "choir dress", which is cassock and surplice.
2.) The proper placement of the choir is really not in the loft (this was a development to accommodate female singers by putting them "out of sight"), but in the chancel, or the space between the high altar and the nave. The spirit of the traditional liturgy naturally suggests that those sitting in choir here are only clerics, religious, or lay dignitaries.... in the case of actual singers, only surpliced men and boys.
3.) Again, as you say, choir can be a wellspring for vocations; in fact, an inability to sing was considered an impediment to major orders in the medieval Church; but once women begin to participate, boys and most men shy away from it. In my experience, a lot of men in traditional communities subconsciously consider choir to be a feminine activity, or something their daughters can do as a concession for not being able to serve the altar as acolytes.
What can be done?First of all, any man who is seriously concerned about this but hasn't taken the time to learn chant himself, how to read square notation, etc. is making a mistake. One of the great obstacles to restoring all-male choirs is getting over the common assumption that "it's too hard to get by without women". More difficult, yes, but not impossible by any means. Plainchant is much easier for men without any musical experience to learn than modern church music. So, in other words, the change must begin with yourself.
After that, I recommend joining or helping to form an all-male, surpliced schola which operates alongside the usual mixed choir, but the schola would be dedicated to one thing only: the singing of the Mass Propers (Introit, Gradual, Alleluia/Tract, Offertory, Communion). The other choir would be responsible for the Ordinary of the Mass and extra-liturgical motets or hymns. After several years of this, the possibility can be explored of asking the schola to be solely responsible for leading all the sacred music.
At our nuptial Mass, we used the dual choir arrangement: a mixed lay choir in the organ loft tasked only with singing a polyphonic composition of the Mass Ordinary (the
Missa Pange Lingua by Josquin de Prez), and an all-male schola vested in cassock and surplice, seated in makeshift choir stalls in the front of the church between the bride/groom and the congregation to sing the Mass Propers and other Gregorian chants. Some images below.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-si85LwRr2xk%2FVMbCOqdWFoI%2FAAAAAAAAAbM%2FKQFN3yQdmIo%2Fs1600%2FJames%2526Lauren_074.JPG&hash=6f91cf1b4b8f16f6765ccfd87b91d60562a799f2)
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-g8BJ32iEl9M%2FVM7MwvofbwI%2FAAAAAAAAAeY%2FyFyoPxUB540%2Fs1600%2FJames%2526Lauren_123.JPG&hash=437a28d32e43fe81670d19150f6a3051d9e35fa1)
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-7C52mjV1j9o%2FVM9KRpLrTvI%2FAAAAAAAAAiA%2FNh_tPATWTDg%2Fs1600%2FJames%2526Lauren_058.jpg&hash=aadf9291d615c66ed4092f95a038d8fb393cd307)
This photo below of the schola of Our Lady of Guadalupe FSSP Seminary during their most recent diaconal ordinations is worth seeing as another expression of the liturgical ideal:
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18010693_739993139513054_208294272058245214_n.jpg?oh=2638c8cf5500f2fc755a10a10d1f7307&oe=5990AFA5)
And, so Institute of Christ the King fans don't feel left out:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.institute-christ-king.org%2Fuploads%2Fgallery%2F2010_seminary_holy_week%2Fpic09.jpg&hash=944f554890cfdc9a994338eacd99212d06dbcec5)
I would finally refer everyone to Augustus Welby Pugin's tract,
An Earnest Appeal for the Revival of the Ancient Plainsong, which was originally published in 1850, many years before Pius X's motu proprio and which I transcribed for my blog. He's very polemical, but funny. Here's a relevant excerpt on the difference between singing from the chancel and singing from a loft (emphases toward the end mine).
Quote from: Augustus PuginFormerly such persons as now constitute the choir were unknown. The service was sung in Parochial Churches, between the clerks and devout laymen (ministri), who assisted them in the chancel, and the people in the body of the church, who responded in unison. This grand and overpowering effect of the people answering the priest is yet to be heard in parts of Germany. At Minden the Habemus ad Dominum rose from more than two thousand voices of faithful worshippers. What a difference from the vicarious reply of three or four professionals, thrusting their heads from out of their curtained gallery in the intervals of their private conversation, and whose hearts, instead of being raised up, were probably groveling in the contemplation of a pull at a wine bottle between the acts of the performance, for it must be distinctly understood that all persons who sing in galleries are performers by position. Nutshells, orange peel, and biscuit bags, abound in organ lofts and singing galleries, and those who are acquainted with the practical working of these places must be aware, that they are a constant source of scandal and irreverence.
Now, when we contrast the Catholic arrangement in a chancel to their miserable expedient of a gallery, we shall at once perceive the infinite wisdom and beauty of the former. All are habited in vestments, whose colour reminds them of the purity of heart and intention, with which they should celebrate the praises of Almighty God. They stand within the sacred enclosure set apart for sacrifice; the very place tends to preserve a recollection of the Divine presence, and to keep the singers in a devout posture. The distinct and graduated Chaunt offers no impediment to the perfect union of the heart and mind with the words as they are sung; and in lieu of a more empty and vain display of vocal eccentricities, we have a solemn, heartfelt, and, we may trust, an acceptable service to the honour of Almighty God.
Now, it cannot be too earnestly impressed on the minds of all, that these arrangements for the Church service were universal throughout Christendom. It is no new scheme or system, proposed for trial; it is simply carrying out the practices of the Church for certainly more than fourteen centuries. Not only were the cathedral and collegiate churches provided with stalls and seats, and ample space for the ceremonies of the choir, but every parish church, and even chapel, had its due proportion of chancel, where the divine praises were always sung; and from the Basilica of St. Clement's, down to the humblest church of the 17th century, we shall find the same traditional arrangement. Singing galleries are modern abominations, and no good will ever be effected in Church music, until they are utterly destroyed, and the service sung in its legitimate and ancient position—the choir or chancel. While these galleries are suffered to remain, the erection of pointed churches is a mere sham. In vain the long succession of clustered pillars; in vain the carved screen and gilded rood; the soul of the whole thing is wanting; it is the system of a modern chapel worked in the shell of an old church. Who, then, will be asked, are those who sit robed in surplices in the stalled seats? Only privileged persons, perhaps subscribers, who go in for a show, like supernumeraries on the stage; lay figures as the "Ecclesiologist," most wittily termed them, and but dumb dogs into the bargain.
A greater sham than this cannot be seen. And was it for this that the long chancel was stalled and screened? That the cunning work was carved and the gold laid on—merely for the accommodation of some good easy men, who take no part in the solemnity, nor contribute one note to the divine praise! Surely not; it is the greatest possible perversion of a chancel; a scandal, and a shame. What could be more painful than to read the account of the new church recently consecrated at Sheffield, where the architect had really produced an edifice quite in the old spirit; and instead of the solemn Chaunt of the dedication rising from its chancel we are sickened by a long eulogy on the quaverings of female singers. St. John's, Salford, is even a more melancholy example; a great cruciform church, with an ample choir, and yet fitted up as if for the followers of John Knox; a most disheartening spectacle.
Here's the whole thing: http://modernmedievalism.blogspot.com/2012/10/pugin-earnest-appeal-for-revival-of.html
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 22, 2017, 11:23:41 AM
Altar girls did not annihilate vocations. You're better off avoiding dumb rhetoric.
Next, it's mostly a practical thing, in my experience. Men have avoided doing the heavy lifting in the churches for quite some time now. Women will fill in the gaps. Not surprising.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
It plays a role. A boy sees an unmasculine, powerless man surrounded by girl altar servers and pushed around by some bullish middle aged parish council woman or sacristan. The Faith (in its banal Conciliar format) becomes something for girls.
I notice that HK said it well.
Now some chapels or churches simply don't have a reserve of boys who voices can be trained. The policy seems to be opt for a mixed choir or even mainly female rather than have Low Mass every Sunday. Yet it serves to discourage boys. Catch 22 maybe.
Perhaps, possibly, there can be a policy of choosing settings that don't need big choirs. William Byrd's
Mass For Three Voices was composed in a time where big choirs were an impossibility for Recusants, whether in the chapel of a gentleman and his household or hidden rooms in private houses. Doing something with three men can perhaps give time to train sufficent numbers of boys. Plainchant is the other HK example, and on occasion, the Dominicans at some of the Holy Week ceremonies idd well. Even if a choir at TLM can involve men and women, I think something is lost where is almost never choirs of only men or boys. It means you never get to here a lot of Mass settings the way the composer intended.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on April 22, 2017, 11:35:46 PM
Hello, Julian. Some posters here know that I manage a traveling all-male schola of chanters, and that I've advocated for the return of all-male choirs for many, many years now.
I have found HK persuasive on this topic and I imagine that most of us who have seen his thoughts on the subject over the years agree that there ought to be all-male choirs. My sense is that this is the position of the majority of posters on this forum. At least, it is the position most frequently expressed here.
There seems to be something about Julian's posting that is eliciting a negative reaction from people who basically agree with him. Perhaps there is something in his tone. Or perhaps he needed to get acquainted with this forum and its posters better before jumping into his cause.
.
Quote from: Prayerful on April 23, 2017, 02:45:48 AM
It plays a role. A boy sees an unmasculine, powerless man surrounded by girl altar servers and pushed around by some bullish middle aged parish council woman or sacristan. The Faith (in its banal Conciliar format) becomes something for girls.
Well put!
The liturgy must be overtly, decidedly and manifestly masculine, otherwise vocations are lost.
It is natural for pious women to gravitate towards the masculine, BUT for pious men to shun the feminine.
Traditional Mass centers that do not make it clear that the choir SHOULD BE all men/boys, are only ultimately hurting vocations...particularly vocations to the brotherhood, which are almost extinct.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on April 22, 2017, 11:35:46 PM
Hello, Julian. Some posters here know that I manage a traveling all-male schola of chanters, and that I've advocated for the return of all-male choirs for many, many years now. I wrote about it in a blog post from 2014 after attending a concert by the Westminster Abbey Choir: http://modernmedievalism.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-weekend-in-dallas-why-we-need.html
The principles at hand are these:
1.) Choir and altar service are both, as you say, related. The Roman Rite presupposes that both are made up of clerics or at least men who could potentially be clerics. Indeed, altar servers for the TLM typically wear "choir dress", which is cassock and surplice.
2.) The proper placement of the choir is really not in the loft (this was a development to accommodate female singers by putting them "out of sight"), but in the chancel, or the space between the high altar and the nave. The spirit of the traditional liturgy naturally suggests that those sitting in choir here are only clerics, religious, or lay dignitaries.... in the case of actual singers, only surpliced men and boys.
3.) Again, as you say, choir can be a wellspring for vocations; in fact, an inability to sing was considered an impediment to major orders in the medieval Church; but once women begin to participate, boys and most men shy away from it. In my experience, a lot of men in traditional communities subconsciously consider choir to be a feminine activity, or something their daughters can do as a concession for not being able to serve the altar as acolytes.
What can be done?
First of all, any man who is seriously concerned about this but hasn't taken the time to learn chant himself, how to read square notation, etc. is making a mistake. One of the great obstacles to restoring all-male choirs is getting over the common assumption that "it's too hard to get by without women". More difficult, yes, but not impossible by any means. Plainchant is much easier for men without any musical experience to learn than modern church music. So, in other words, the change must begin with yourself.
After that, I recommend joining or helping to form an all-male, surpliced schola which operates alongside the usual mixed choir, but the schola would be dedicated to one thing only: the singing of the Mass Propers (Introit, Gradual, Alleluia/Tract, Offertory, Communion). The other choir would be responsible for the Ordinary of the Mass and extra-liturgical motets or hymns. After several years of this, the possibility can be explored of asking the schola to be solely responsible for leading all the sacred music.
At our nuptial Mass, we used the dual choir arrangement: a mixed lay choir in the organ loft tasked only with singing a polyphonic composition of the Mass Ordinary (the Missa Pange Lingua by Josquin de Prez), and an all-male schola vested in cassock and surplice, seated in makeshift choir stalls in the front of the church between the bride/groom and the congregation to sing the Mass Propers and other Gregorian chants. Some images below.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-si85LwRr2xk%2FVMbCOqdWFoI%2FAAAAAAAAAbM%2FKQFN3yQdmIo%2Fs1600%2FJames%2526Lauren_074.JPG&hash=6f91cf1b4b8f16f6765ccfd87b91d60562a799f2)
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-g8BJ32iEl9M%2FVM7MwvofbwI%2FAAAAAAAAAeY%2FyFyoPxUB540%2Fs1600%2FJames%2526Lauren_123.JPG&hash=437a28d32e43fe81670d19150f6a3051d9e35fa1)
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-7C52mjV1j9o%2FVM9KRpLrTvI%2FAAAAAAAAAiA%2FNh_tPATWTDg%2Fs1600%2FJames%2526Lauren_058.jpg&hash=aadf9291d615c66ed4092f95a038d8fb393cd307)
This photo below of the schola of Our Lady of Guadalupe FSSP Seminary during their most recent diaconal ordinations is worth seeing as another expression of the liturgical ideal:
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18010693_739993139513054_208294272058245214_n.jpg?oh=2638c8cf5500f2fc755a10a10d1f7307&oe=5990AFA5)
And, so Institute of Christ the King fans don't feel left out:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.institute-christ-king.org%2Fuploads%2Fgallery%2F2010_seminary_holy_week%2Fpic09.jpg&hash=944f554890cfdc9a994338eacd99212d06dbcec5)
I would finally refer everyone to Augustus Welby Pugin's tract, An Earnest Appeal for the Revival of the Ancient Plainsong, which was originally published in 1850, many years before Pius X's motu proprio and which I transcribed for my blog. He's very polemical, but funny. Here's a relevant excerpt on the difference between singing from the chancel and singing from a loft (emphases toward the end mine).
Quote from: Augustus PuginFormerly such persons as now constitute the choir were unknown. The service was sung in Parochial Churches, between the clerks and devout laymen (ministri), who assisted them in the chancel, and the people in the body of the church, who responded in unison. This grand and overpowering effect of the people answering the priest is yet to be heard in parts of Germany. At Minden the Habemus ad Dominum rose from more than two thousand voices of faithful worshippers. What a difference from the vicarious reply of three or four professionals, thrusting their heads from out of their curtained gallery in the intervals of their private conversation, and whose hearts, instead of being raised up, were probably groveling in the contemplation of a pull at a wine bottle between the acts of the performance, for it must be distinctly understood that all persons who sing in galleries are performers by position. Nutshells, orange peel, and biscuit bags, abound in organ lofts and singing galleries, and those who are acquainted with the practical working of these places must be aware, that they are a constant source of scandal and irreverence.
Now, when we contrast the Catholic arrangement in a chancel to their miserable expedient of a gallery, we shall at once perceive the infinite wisdom and beauty of the former. All are habited in vestments, whose colour reminds them of the purity of heart and intention, with which they should celebrate the praises of Almighty God. They stand within the sacred enclosure set apart for sacrifice; the very place tends to preserve a recollection of the Divine presence, and to keep the singers in a devout posture. The distinct and graduated Chaunt offers no impediment to the perfect union of the heart and mind with the words as they are sung; and in lieu of a more empty and vain display of vocal eccentricities, we have a solemn, heartfelt, and, we may trust, an acceptable service to the honour of Almighty God.
Now, it cannot be too earnestly impressed on the minds of all, that these arrangements for the Church service were universal throughout Christendom. It is no new scheme or system, proposed for trial; it is simply carrying out the practices of the Church for certainly more than fourteen centuries. Not only were the cathedral and collegiate churches provided with stalls and seats, and ample space for the ceremonies of the choir, but every parish church, and even chapel, had its due proportion of chancel, where the divine praises were always sung; and from the Basilica of St. Clement's, down to the humblest church of the 17th century, we shall find the same traditional arrangement. Singing galleries are modern abominations, and no good will ever be effected in Church music, until they are utterly destroyed, and the service sung in its legitimate and ancient position—the choir or chancel. While these galleries are suffered to remain, the erection of pointed churches is a mere sham. In vain the long succession of clustered pillars; in vain the carved screen and gilded rood; the soul of the whole thing is wanting; it is the system of a modern chapel worked in the shell of an old church. Who, then, will be asked, are those who sit robed in surplices in the stalled seats? Only privileged persons, perhaps subscribers, who go in for a show, like supernumeraries on the stage; lay figures as the "Ecclesiologist," most wittily termed them, and but dumb dogs into the bargain.
A greater sham than this cannot be seen. And was it for this that the long chancel was stalled and screened? That the cunning work was carved and the gold laid on—merely for the accommodation of some good easy men, who take no part in the solemnity, nor contribute one note to the divine praise! Surely not; it is the greatest possible perversion of a chancel; a scandal, and a shame. What could be more painful than to read the account of the new church recently consecrated at Sheffield, where the architect had really produced an edifice quite in the old spirit; and instead of the solemn Chaunt of the dedication rising from its chancel we are sickened by a long eulogy on the quaverings of female singers. St. John's, Salford, is even a more melancholy example; a great cruciform church, with an ample choir, and yet fitted up as if for the followers of John Knox; a most disheartening spectacle.
Here's the whole thing: http://modernmedievalism.blogspot.com/2012/10/pugin-earnest-appeal-for-revival-of.html
Thank you for your post. I did learn how to chant and bought a Liber Brevior (cheaper and fits in my pocket) only because I became increasingly concerned by all the mixed choirs I kept seeing, whether diocesan or SSPX. If you want to learn how to chant, you can. It does seem difficult though if you haven't started, or have barely started.
Thinking about it, I think Pope St Pius X probably expressly reiterated mixed choirs to be forbidden in 1903 because a few churches were permitting mixed choirs, and he was responding to an abuse that was beginning to crop up. This would corroborate with the quote of Pugin that you have given. They didn't mince words then.
You are right that the assumption of many is that they feel it's too hard have choirs without women. On a different but related note, others, who attend the NO, might similarly say it's too hard for them to understand the Latin for the TLM. But millennia of the greatest Saints coped with both, in far harder and less well-off conditions than our own. It's never been easier to learn chant and it's never been easier to learn Latin, yet people still say these things. I think it is a spiritual laziness that exists in some people where they want as few restrictions on things as possible. They would rather desire restrictions to be broken down rather than make a genuine effort, like the saints did, to accord themselves with the traditions.
I think even the suggestion that there should be an all-male choir operating side-by-side with whoever, will be met with raised eyebrows by some. What's the point of having two choirs, they will say? What's the need? You will then have to explain to them that mixed choirs were forbidden by Pius X and were continually forbidden throughout the Church's history, then someone will say, well they are "allowed" by Pius XII and that's that. And the entirety of the Roman Catholic Tradition on this important issue since the Early Church even, gets silenced and people pretend it doesn't exist. Isn't that what some priests do about the TLM in general? Pretend it doesn't exist?
I believe this to be of the utmost seriousness. Through neglect, to even prevent one vocation is very serious, whether in times of prosperity for the Church, or times of adversity like our own. That vocation could be a St Francis Xavier or a St John Bosco. Indeed St Dominic Savio (+1857), taught by Don Bosco, is the patron saint of choirboys. Choir girls were considered an abuse. I think the widespread permission of mixed choirs in the TLM is serious neglect, even amongst SSPX priests sadly, even though on their website they are still formally against it.
http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__liturgical.htm
To me, this is very serious, because it just seems to make a mockery of tradition, especially because very few who call themselves traditional Catholics seem to genuinely care about this issue. Tradition is fine until things "get serious" and "difficult to organise", then you have to compromise. For some, that means girls in the choir are fine. For others, girls on the altar are fine. I could carry on with worse travesties that I do not want to mention, that people "want", because otherwise things are difficult to organise.
If we had a strong Pope guiding us, these issues would be better sorted out. But even when there was, like Pius X, there were still some abuses and problems. It, by itself, clearly is not the greatest issue the Church faces at the moment. But for all the reasons mentioned, it just propagates the same mediocrity and cannot be allowed to continue. It is difficult to expect laymen like ourselves to sort everything out by ourselves. Ultimately the change has to come from the traditional priests themselves. They must want this in their churches but they can be persuaded to by laymen. God bless you for your efforts, and for the efforts for the faith of the others here too.
Quote from: aquinas138 on April 22, 2017, 06:34:00 PM
I think the reality of the modern world requires women in the choir. St. Pius X's legislation was written in very different circumstances, when every Roman rite parish in the world celebrated the (real) TLM. A "no choir is better than a mixed choir, Low Mass all the time" mentality is a perfect recipe for making sure TLM communities remain ghettoized in the larger Church.
I think this first sentence is what so many worldly Catholics, who are just interested in superficial "participation" and not actual genuine spiritual advancement, suggest for all manner of abuses that were always condemned by the Church. I'm not suggesting you are like this for just one sentence, and not suggesting I am spiritually advanced. I do not know you. I do know my sins however. But one must realise that this is precisely the motto of many worldlings who are just interested in changing things for the sake of change, for the sake of novelty. But the truth does not change. Even if I might be wrong on this or that, the truth of what is genuinely good or genuinely bad does not change.
As far as I understand, Low Mass is only a few centuries old whereas Sung Masses have been in the Church since its beginnings. The increasing commonality of Low Mass, also as far I as understand, only happened in the 20th century just before the NO. Before the 20th century, Sung Masses were very common. Not only common, but had world-class choirs. If they happened in the past, they can happen now.
I am aware of the case of St Ephrem the Syrian. A great saint. I love his prayers to Mary. He died in 373 AD, only 9 years after the Council of Laodeicia which stopped congregational singing and stressed that singing in the choir was a clerical role. In the same century it was then permitted for boys, but not women. I'm not sure what St Ephrem did after that council. These particulars took some time for the Early Church to work out as to what was most solemn and fitting for the celebration of Holy Mass. Hope this helps. God bless.
Quote from: Jayne on April 23, 2017, 04:27:09 AM
Quote from: The Harlequin King on April 22, 2017, 11:35:46 PM
Hello, Julian. Some posters here know that I manage a traveling all-male schola of chanters, and that I've advocated for the return of all-male choirs for many, many years now.
I have found HK persuasive on this topic and I imagine that most of us who have seen his thoughts on the subject over the years agree that there ought to be all-male choirs. My sense is that this is the position of the majority of posters on this forum. At least, it is the position most frequently expressed here.
There seems to be something about Julian's posting that is eliciting a negative reaction from people who basically agree with him. Perhaps there is something in his tone. Or perhaps he needed to get acquainted with this forum and its posters better before jumping into his cause.
If that is the case, then I am sorry. I just want to help. These things ordinarily shouldn't even be up to me. I just want to go to Church and be nourished in the faith, not spend ages talking unprofitably about problems in the Church, without trying, if I can, to find solutions to them. It has just concerned me for some time that this seems to be a glaring issue that very few want to talk about. Even amongst those traditional Catholics who agree, there are few openly stating this case. Maybe I am too direct, and there are certainly others who could make a more persuasive case. I would suggest contacting your local priests about this for anyone else reading this, if you agree with me.
Quote from: Jayne on April 23, 2017, 04:27:09 AM
There seems to be something about Julian's posting that is eliciting a negative reaction from people who basically agree with him. Perhaps there is something in his tone. Or perhaps he needed to get acquainted with this forum and its posters better before jumping into his cause.
I think people should entirely overlook the "tone" of other posters, and
definitely not bring it up in a thread, but only after reading very many of another's posts, only privately message a person with some constructive criticism. Everyone has a different personality, and at a different level of virtue, and it should be left alone.
Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 23, 2017, 12:13:21 PM
Quote from: Jayne on April 23, 2017, 04:27:09 AM
There seems to be something about Julian's posting that is eliciting a negative reaction from people who basically agree with him. Perhaps there is something in his tone. Or perhaps he needed to get acquainted with this forum and its posters better before jumping into his cause.
I think people should entirely overlook the "tone" of other posters, and definitely not bring it up in a thread, but only after reading very many of another's posts, only privately message a person with some constructive criticism. Everyone has a different personality, and at a different level of virtue, and it should be left alone.
Why would we care what a ten day old account thinks of how long-time posters should post here? :^)
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 23, 2017, 12:29:27 PM
Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 23, 2017, 12:13:21 PM
Quote from: Jayne on April 23, 2017, 04:27:09 AM
There seems to be something about Julian's posting that is eliciting a negative reaction from people who basically agree with him. Perhaps there is something in his tone. Or perhaps he needed to get acquainted with this forum and its posters better before jumping into his cause.
I think people should entirely overlook the "tone" of other posters, and definitely not bring it up in a thread, but only after reading very many of another's posts, only privately message a person with some constructive criticism. Everyone has a different personality, and at a different level of virtue, and it should be left alone.
Why would we care what a ten day old account thinks of how long-time posters should post here? :^)
What should the ancients in the temple have cared what they were hearing from a 12 year old boy they never saw before?
Christ expects we listen to what others say at face value.
"Having personally grown up as an altar boy having to serve with girls, they sadly ruin the purity of many of the altar boys."
"What? Just... what? You need your head examined then. How did the girls dressed in floor-length white robes 'ruin the purity' of the altar boys?'
If the altar girl is hot, she could
Quote from: Older Salt on April 23, 2017, 01:32:06 PM
If the altar girl is hot, she could
How hot are we talking here?
Quote from: Graham on April 23, 2017, 05:26:12 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on April 23, 2017, 01:32:06 PM
If the altar girl is hot, she could
How hot are we talking here?
This is a bizarre line of conversation. As noted by Kaesekopf, the majority of NO altar servers are
children.
What kind of response would I receive if I started sexualizing male altar servers?
Quote from: attiret on April 23, 2017, 07:26:56 PM
Quote from: Graham on April 23, 2017, 05:26:12 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on April 23, 2017, 01:32:06 PM
If the altar girl is hot, she could
How hot are we talking here?
This is a bizarre line of conversation. As noted by Kaesekopf, the majority of NO altar servers are children.
What kind of response would I receive if I started sexualizing male altar servers?
Obviously it's absurd. I was highlighting the absurdity of it. Kaese or someone else with a sense of humour was going to riff on it, it could have been quite amusing.
Quote from: Graham on April 23, 2017, 07:39:35 PM
Quote from: attiret on April 23, 2017, 07:26:56 PM
Quote from: Graham on April 23, 2017, 05:26:12 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on April 23, 2017, 01:32:06 PM
If the altar girl is hot, she could
How hot are we talking here?
This is a bizarre line of conversation. As noted by Kaesekopf, the majority of NO altar servers are children.
What kind of response would I receive if I started sexualizing male altar servers?
Obviously it's absurd. I was highlighting the absurdity of it. Kaese or someone else with a sense of humour was going to riff on it, it could have been quite amusing.
You know all those hotties just dying to serve altar and look darn good in those shapeless floor length albs....
:^)
But this is a trad forum, so maybe we've got folks who are into that....
[emoji38]
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 23, 2017, 07:44:33 PM
Quote from: Graham on April 23, 2017, 07:39:35 PM
Quote from: attiret on April 23, 2017, 07:26:56 PM
Quote from: Graham on April 23, 2017, 05:26:12 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on April 23, 2017, 01:32:06 PM
If the altar girl is hot, she could
How hot are we talking here?
This is a bizarre line of conversation. As noted by Kaesekopf, the majority of NO altar servers are children.
What kind of response would I receive if I started sexualizing male altar servers?
Obviously it's absurd. I was highlighting the absurdity of it. Kaese or someone else with a sense of humour was going to riff on it, it could have been quite amusing.
You know all those hotties just dying to serve altar and look darn good in those shapeless floor length albs....
:^)
But this is a trad forum, so maybe we've got folks who are into that....
[emoji38]
More like, this is the internet and there is probably someone reading this that has been sexually abused. Perhaps even by a priest. Not funny in the slightest.
Not seeing the connection, HaB.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
That's good, double down on humourlessness. Very effective.
Well this shows that some people who may claim to be outwardly "traditional" may not necessarily yet have the true faith at heart. Not that I think I do, but I continually desire to, or at least I hope I do, in God's eyes.
Of course, very young children are very young children. But some adolescent children can look like adults. And there are many adult women who serve at the NO. Now, are you telling me that staring at a young attractive adult or adult-looking woman throughout Mass is not going to cause issues for some people? If you do not, it is perhaps because you do not prize the virtue of chastity. Our Lady of Fatima said that "more souls are sent to Hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason." Perhaps the shocking debauchery of the culture has desensitised you to these things I have mentioned, which very much matter. Chastity has always been a far larger cross for men than for women. The term "girl altar boys" is a term obviously intended to describe females at the altar, both adults and children.
You joke about it amongst yourselves, but your jokes will echo into the cold atmosphere, dissipate and will soon be forgotten, amongst us at least. Death is coming soon for us all. The reality of this disorder being unleashed on Catholics in the NO is not a joke I'd expect to be trivialised and mocked so callously by the moderator, of all people, of a "traditional Catholic forum". It's quite sad to see this. This does not represent traditional Catholicism even remotely. What do you think St John Vianney or St Alphonsus would think about girl altar boys? How would they have reacted to someone joking about something like this?
The discussion was supposed to be about females in the choir, who would not even think about wanting to wear the clerical garment, at least in the traditional Latin Mass. So this no doubt can also cause many problems, particularly for those men who are in the choir with them. As well as all the other reasons. All this stuff clearly and obviously prevents vocations.
The females themselves in particular should be pushing very strongly for all-male choirs. We are not here to "do things" or "participate" superficially, but to save our souls and as many other souls as we can.
Many of the other posts, particularly by Maximilian, TheHarlequinKing and BumphreyHogart were excellent and very informative, and I thank particularly these posters.
Ah, yes. Authentic traditional Catholicism, where even looking at a pretty woman is a danger to one's purity!
Lord, save us from these hyperscrupulous "trads"!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 24, 2017, 02:43:56 PM
Ah, yes. Authentic traditional Catholicism, where even looking at a pretty woman is a danger to one's purity!
Lord, save us from these hyperscrupulous "trads"!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
The words of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Matthew 5:27-29. [DR translation]
"You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.
Quote from: Julian on April 24, 2017, 02:50:31 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 24, 2017, 02:43:56 PM
Ah, yes. Authentic traditional Catholicism, where even looking at a pretty woman is a danger to one's purity!
Lord, save us from these hyperscrupulous "trads"!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
The words of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Matthew 5:27-29. [DR translation]
"You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.
You looking at women with lust and adultery while at Mass raises greater issues about you than it does the woman...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Quote from: Julian on April 24, 2017, 02:19:40 PMNow, are you telling me that staring at a young attractive adult or adult-looking woman throughout Mass is not going to cause issues for some people?
I wasn't intending to make light of it really, just how Older Salt phrased it was funny to me. The whole tone of the thread suddenly turned crude. That's funny to me.
Anyway, the joke that men are easily distracted by even the abstract possibility of an attractive woman existing somewhere, if anything, actually buttresses your argument.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 24, 2017, 02:53:07 PM
Quote from: Julian on April 24, 2017, 02:50:31 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 24, 2017, 02:43:56 PM
Ah, yes. Authentic traditional Catholicism, where even looking at a pretty woman is a danger to one's purity!
Lord, save us from these hyperscrupulous "trads"!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
The words of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Matthew 5:27-29. [DR translation]
"You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.
You looking at women with lust and adultery while at Mass raises greater issues about you than it does the woman...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Friend. It's not about me. It's about other people and trying to save souls. How many weak and impressionable souls are there that are easily mislead. Ask yourself why the Popes never allowed this before. You are pretty much calling all the traditional Popes and Saints of the past, including the women, and to be honest, Our Lord Himself, "hyperscrupulous". Just stop friend, please. I'm mean. It's almost as if you are genuinely arguing like a liberal.
No doubt it's stressful to be a Catholic these days and easy to be mislead into false opinions on things, so I don't blame you as I don't know you. God, who knows you and I better than we know ourselves, will be better able to judge us for what we should have done and said.
Julian does not come across to me like someone who is hyper-scrupulous. He is expressing a legitimate concern about mixed choirs. I find his arguments reasonable. The practice is problematic for several reasons. It is not a sign of some sort of obsession that one of the reasons he mentioned relates to sexual morality. It was not his first line of argument.
The issue of sexual morality is involved whenever people of both sexes are spending time together and socializing with each other. This happens even more with choir members than with altar servers. They don't just spend time together at Mass, but at practices and social events.
Quote from: Julian on April 24, 2017, 03:04:01 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 24, 2017, 02:53:07 PM
Quote from: Julian on April 24, 2017, 02:50:31 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 24, 2017, 02:43:56 PM
Ah, yes. Authentic traditional Catholicism, where even looking at a pretty woman is a danger to one's purity!
Lord, save us from these hyperscrupulous "trads"!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
The words of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Matthew 5:27-29. [DR translation]
"You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.
You looking at women with lust and adultery while at Mass raises greater issues about you than it does the woman...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Friend. It's not about me. It's about other people and trying to save souls. How many weak and impressionable souls are there that are easily mislead. Ask yourself why the Popes never allowed this before. You are pretty much calling all the traditional Popes and Saints of the past, including the women, and to be honest, Our Lord Himself, "hyperscrupulous". Just stop friend, please. I'm mean. It's almost as if you are genuinely arguing like a liberal.
No doubt it's stressful to be a Catholic these days and easy to be mislead into false opinions on things, so I don't blame you as I don't know you. God, who knows you and I better than we know ourselves, will be better able to judge us for what we should have done and said.
I bet the popes had better reasons than "someones gonna have a naughty thought about little miss altar server"!
You're very passive aggressive. For a new poster, that's not a good quality.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 24, 2017, 03:08:42 PM
You're very passive aggressive. For a new poster, that's not a good quality.
I do not see anything that justifies the level of hostility that you are directing at him. With new posters, we ought to be making even more efforts to be kind and to give the benefit of the doubt.
Haze 'em, I say.
Quote from: Graham on April 24, 2017, 03:14:41 PM
Haze 'em, I say.
You appear to be continuing to exercise your sense of humour in this thread. Perhaps you should consider exorcising it.
Quote from: Julian on April 24, 2017, 02:50:31 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 24, 2017, 02:43:56 PM
Ah, yes. Authentic traditional Catholicism, where even looking at a pretty woman is a danger to one's purity!
Lord, save us from these hyperscrupulous "trads"!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
The words of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Matthew 5:27-29. [DR translation]
"You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.
Jimmy Carter famously had 'lust in his heart.'
One thing at the SSPX chapel I notice was they had a priest I never saw before offer Mass. I think he was French, judging by his accent. He had a very quiet voice. Perhaps that was why the small choir, mostly young women was limited to singing for non-liturgical purposes, say at peoples' Communion, and after Mass.
Quote from: Graham on April 24, 2017, 02:55:45 PM
Quote from: Julian on April 24, 2017, 02:19:40 PMNow, are you telling me that staring at a young attractive adult or adult-looking woman throughout Mass is not going to cause issues for some people?
I wasn't intending to make light of it really, just how Older Salt phrased it was funny to me. The whole tone of the thread suddenly turned crude. That's funny to me.
Anyway, the joke that men are easily distracted by even the abstract possibility of an attractive woman existing somewhere, if anything, actually buttresses your argument.
Come on friend. Here you are today telling me that this buttresses (strengthens) my arguments, but the previous page you said, regarding what I had said, that "obviously it's absurd". Then you carried on joking on the same tone. I didn't really find it funny to be honest. It's very serious in fact. There are many things that one can be pleasant and joke about, but not this. St Thomas tells us to be "cheerful without frivolity". We must avoid the latter.
Quote from: Julian on April 24, 2017, 03:20:22 PM
Quote from: Graham on April 24, 2017, 02:55:45 PM
Quote from: Julian on April 24, 2017, 02:19:40 PMNow, are you telling me that staring at a young attractive adult or adult-looking woman throughout Mass is not going to cause issues for some people?
I wasn't intending to make light of it really, just how Older Salt phrased it was funny to me. The whole tone of the thread suddenly turned crude. That's funny to me.
Anyway, the joke that men are easily distracted by even the abstract possibility of an attractive woman existing somewhere, if anything, actually buttresses your argument.
Come on friend. Here you are today telling me that this buttresses (strengthens) my arguments, but the previous page you said, regarding what I had said, that "obviously it's absurd". Then you carried on joking on the same tone. I didn't really find it funny to be honest. It's very serious in fact. There are many things that one can be pleasant and joke about, but not this. St Thomas tells us to be "cheerful without frivolity". We must avoid the latter.
No, pale man, I said that regarding the line of talk initiated by Older Salt and myself, not regarding what you said.
Quote from: Jayne on April 24, 2017, 03:18:11 PM
Quote from: Graham on April 24, 2017, 03:14:41 PM
Haze 'em, I say.
You appear to be continuing to exercise your sense of humour in this thread. Perhaps you should consider exorcising it.
Not really. With fellows like this I'm all for it.
Quote from: Graham on April 24, 2017, 03:35:06 PM
Quote from: Jayne on April 24, 2017, 03:18:11 PM
You appear to be continuing to exercise your sense of humour in this thread. Perhaps you should consider exorcising it.
Not really. With fellows like this I'm all for it.
Your use of humour does not seem to fit the parameters given by St. Thomas:
QuoteNow such like words or deeds wherein nothing further is sought than the soul's delight, are called playful or humorous. Hence it is necessary at times to make use of them, in order to give rest, as it were, to the soul. This is in agreement with the statement of the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 8) that "in the intercourse of this life there is a kind of rest that is associated with games": and consequently it is sometimes necessary to make use of such things.
Nevertheless it would seem that in this matter there are three points which require especial caution. The first and chief is that the pleasure in question should not be sought in indecent or injurious deeds or words. Wherefore Tully says (De Offic. i, 29) that "one kind of joke is discourteous, insolent, scandalous, obscene." Another thing to be observed is that one lose not the balance of one's mind altogether. Hence Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 20): "We should beware lest, when we seek relaxation of mind, we destroy all that harmony which is the concord of good works": and Tully says (De Offic. i, 29), that, "just as we do not allow children to enjoy absolute freedom in their games, but only that which is consistent with good behavior, so our very fun should reflect something of an upright mind." Thirdly, we must be careful, as in all other human actions, to conform ourselves to persons, time, and place, and take due account of other circumstances, so that our fun "befit the hour and the man," as Tully says (De Offic. i, 29).
from Summa Theologiae: Second Part of the Second Part: Question 168: Article 2 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3168.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3168.htm)
Oh, did I say something OBSCENE, Jayne? get out of here with that.
Quote from: Graham on April 24, 2017, 04:21:02 PM
Oh, did I say something OBSCENE, Jayne? get out of here with that.
Of course not. Is that really the only idea you saw in that passage - that it is wrong to use obscene humour?
Quote from: Jayne on April 24, 2017, 04:24:29 PM
Quote from: Graham on April 24, 2017, 04:21:02 PM
Oh, did I say something OBSCENE, Jayne? get out of here with that.
Of course not. Is that really the only idea you saw in that passage - that it is wrong to use obscene humour?
Just go away. You're being uptight - St Thomas was dealing with literal peasant humour - and if you disagree, consider that your attempt at "correcting" me is failing miserably and making me angry with you. St. Thomas says we have to be very careful about fraternal corrections after all.
I am not attempting to correct you. I am trying to show Julian that some people here object to established posters having fun at a new poster's expense.
Hazing is not that different from bullying and that is something that I cannot stand.
Hazing is very different. It's testing and forming a person for membership in a group.
Look, I've been mediating for the guy, but he's clearly of a certain type that needs checking. I'm not here saying let's be gratuitously mean to people.
Quote from: Graham on April 24, 2017, 04:39:48 PM
Hazing is very different. It's testing and forming a person for membership in a group.
Look, I've been mediating for the guy, but he's clearly of a certain type that needs checking. I'm not here saying let's be gratuitously mean to people.
I do not see how he is supposed to figure out what he is doing wrong from posters going off into a riff of jokes. If he is doing something unacceptable or irritating, then it might be helpful for people to clearly tell him what that is. Without some sort of explanation, we might as well be gratuitously mean to people.
There is one thing I would offer a slight correction on. Julian wrote,
Quote from: Julian
Thinking about it, I think Pope St Pius X probably expressly reiterated mixed choirs to be forbidden in 1903 because a few churches were permitting mixed choirs, and he was responding to an abuse that was beginning to crop up. This would corroborate with the quote of Pugin that you have given. They didn't mince words then.
All the reading I've done on the history of Catholic choirs suggests that female singers were introduced between the 1600's and 1700's. This coincides with the period when the physical location of the choir moved from the chancel (in front of the altar, in stalls) to the organ loft, away from view. This was not a new development by Pius X's time. On the contrary, he was trying to correct an abuse which had been tolerated for centuries by the excuse that the female singers were being "heard but not seen". "Heard but not seen" has now been accepted by many as though it were the perennial tradition of the Church, being completely ignorant of the longer tradition of surpliced choirs of men and boys in the chancel.
I recommend you check out the book
Fifth Avenue Famous: The Extraordinary Story of Music at St. Patrick's Cathedral. It's about the history of the choirs at St. Patrick's, Manhattan. Not written by a traditionalist by any means, but very informative nonetheless. Turn to page 44, which begins the history of changes following Pius X's motu proprio. It seems most American churches simply ignored the prohibition against female singers or found ways to explain why it didn't apply to them (much like they did about Communion in the hand or, in the early-mid 19th century, slavery). Here's the link to the Google Books preview: https://books.google.com/books?id=79SUxKSv2okC&printsec=frontcover
Quote from: Prayerful on April 23, 2017, 02:45:48 AM
Now some chapels or churches simply don't have a reserve of boys who voices can be trained.
I have proposed that all potential altar servers mandatorily begin by joining the choir. No, I'm not saying they start by learning how to sing graduals. Rather, they start by learning how to sit in choir and observe the ceremonies of Mass from a "front row seat" in choir stalls. Then they start to be taught leading the short responses. Then one bit of the Ordinary of the Mass at a time, from among the 18 Gregorian settings in the Kyriale. Only the best among them go on to do full Proper chants. You don't even necessarily need to bother with polyphony if you have a small group.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on April 24, 2017, 07:50:10 PM
There is one thing I would offer a slight correction on. Julian wrote,
Quote from: Julian
Thinking about it, I think Pope St Pius X probably expressly reiterated mixed choirs to be forbidden in 1903 because a few churches were permitting mixed choirs, and he was responding to an abuse that was beginning to crop up. This would corroborate with the quote of Pugin that you have given. They didn't mince words then.
All the reading I've done on the history of Catholic choirs suggests that female singers were introduced between the 1600's and 1700's. This coincides with the period when the physical location of the choir moved from the chancel (in front of the altar, in stalls) to the organ loft, away from view. This was not a new development by Pius X's time. On the contrary, he was trying to correct an abuse which had been tolerated for centuries by the excuse that the female singers were being "heard but not seen". "Heard but not seen" has now been accepted by many as though it were the perennial tradition of the Church, being completely ignorant of the longer tradition of surpliced choirs of men and boys in the chancel.
I recommend you check out the book Fifth Avenue Famous: The Extraordinary Story of Music at St. Patrick's Cathedral. It's about the history of the choirs at St. Patrick's, Manhattan. Not written by a traditionalist by any means, but very informative nonetheless. Turn to page 44, which begins the history of changes following Pius X's motu proprio. It seems most American churches simply ignored the prohibition against female singers or found ways to explain why it didn't apply to them (much like they did about Communion in the hand or, in the early-mid 19th century, slavery). Here's the link to the Google Books preview: https://books.google.com/books?id=79SUxKSv2okC&printsec=frontcover
I have been a bit busy, so I'm sorry for a slow response. I personally wouldn't say they were "introduced" until Pius XII and Bugnini, even if there may have been abuses here and there. It's like saying communion in the hand was "introduced" in the Early Church because of abuses which the Church then continued to severely condemn. Chattel slavery was continually condemned by the Church, particularly by Pope Eugene IV, Benedict XIV and many others. Pope Gregory XVI said "Inspired in fact by the Divine Spirit, the Apostles, it is true, exhorted the slaves themselves to obey their masters, according to the flesh, as though obeying Christ, and sincerely to accomplish the Will of God; but they ordered the masters to act well towards slaves, to give them what was just and equitable, and to abstain from menaces, knowing that the common Master both of themselves and of the slaves is in Heaven, and that with Him there is no distinction of persons." Yes, there were many imperfect people then who committed grave abuses for financial profit, but how enslaved to the devil have so many become in these times?
I probably have not read as much on this issue as you have. But surely the reason they used the choir lofts was not so that any female singers wouldn't be seen, but as a place to keep all the extra choir boys? There would probably be so many choir boys they couldn't all fit in a chancel. They needed to use this huge extra space. Also, perhaps to have alternated singing from the choirs in the chancel and the choir loft. That to me makes far more sense, although I am not completely sure. I cannot see the Popes of the 17th and 18th centuries casually permitting this abuse even in a small number of churches, but I may be wrong.
I had a look at the link you posted. It seems many people considered that church more an opera-event venue than anything else. It seems they even had non-Catholics in the choir. Part of the spirit of the world which later swamped large sections of the Church sadly. The book seems to say, however, that after Pius X's motu proprio, some American dioceses did in fact immediately remove all females from any of the choirs in their diocese that had them, and that the mixed choirs did stop immediately even at St Patrick's in New York. It seems ultimately that it was feministic culture that later broke up the boy choirs.
The choir surely cannot be allowed to become some glorified courtship opportunity, as was suggested on another thread. How many fields and parks and meadows are there for Catholics to meet? If we feel completely indifferent about this, that means surely that we are indifferent to many potential seminarians being swept away into marriages like everyone else? Then where shall the priests come from, at this most pressing and urgent time for the Church? I still don't fully understand why there's so much indifference to this, amongst traditional priests, laity, etc.
But I have to take things one day at a time though and do my best to help, for I have barely done anything myself. I certainly thank everyone here because this has at least made me feel like I'm not completely alone on this. God bless you.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on April 24, 2017, 07:54:19 PM
Quote from: Prayerful on April 23, 2017, 02:45:48 AM
Now some chapels or churches simply don't have a reserve of boys who voices can be trained.
I have proposed that all potential altar servers mandatorily begin by joining the choir. No, I'm not saying they start by learning how to sing graduals. Rather, they start by learning how to sit in choir and observe the ceremonies of Mass from a "front row seat" in choir stalls. Then they start to be taught leading the short responses. Then one bit of the Ordinary of the Mass at a time, from among the 18 Gregorian settings in the Kyriale. Only the best among them go on to do full Proper chants. You don't even necessarily need to bother with polyphony if you have a small group.
One of the glories of High Anglicanism, for all its heresy and ambiguity, is that boys are put to the task of choir singing. The churches and cathedrals of our ancestors had choir stalls. There should be again.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-qDQSjnzH8&index=14&list=PLDHQWeYleeOkq6NQJjRtGROP3d7oBqX_U[/yt]
This is a mixed choir in the diocesan church where I oftentimes hear High Mass:
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnptoLWhZEQ[/yt]
Very good, but boys and youths can provide the best voices for a choir.
Quote from: Julian on April 27, 2017, 12:52:40 PM
I have been a bit busy, so I'm sorry for a slow response. I personally wouldn't say they were "introduced" until Pius XII and Bugnini, even if there may have been abuses here and there. It's like saying communion in the hand was "introduced" in the Early Church because of abuses which the Church then continued to severely condemn. Chattel slavery was continually condemned by the Church, particularly by Pope Eugene IV, Benedict XIV and many others. Pope Gregory XVI said "Inspired in fact by the Divine Spirit, the Apostles, it is true, exhorted the slaves themselves to obey their masters, according to the flesh, as though obeying Christ, and sincerely to accomplish the Will of God; but they ordered the masters to act well towards slaves, to give them what was just and equitable, and to abstain from menaces, knowing that the common Master both of themselves and of the slaves is in Heaven, and that with Him there is no distinction of persons." Yes, there were many imperfect people then who committed grave abuses for financial profit, but how enslaved to the devil have so many become in these times?
This remark of mine earlier was in reference to the American bishops persisting in promoting errors, despite warnings and corrections from the papacy. I didn't mean to imply female singers had official sanction from Rome; merely that the trend had begun long before Pius X. This is indisputable.
QuoteI probably have not read as much on this issue as you have. But surely the reason they used the choir lofts was not so that any female singers wouldn't be seen, but as a place to keep all the extra choir boys? There would probably be so many choir boys they couldn't all fit in a chancel. They needed to use this huge extra space. Also, perhaps to have alternated singing from the choirs in the chancel and the choir loft. That to me makes far more sense, although I am not completely sure. I cannot see the Popes of the 17th and 18th centuries casually permitting this abuse even in a small number of churches, but I may be wrong.
Like I said, lofts were designed principally to accommodate female singers. I'll see if I can find references to this.
QuoteI had a look at the link you posted. It seems many people considered that church more an opera-event venue than anything else. It seems they even had non-Catholics in the choir. Part of the spirit of the world which later swamped large sections of the Church sadly. The book seems to say, however, that after Pius X's motu proprio, some American dioceses did in fact immediately remove all females from any of the choirs in their diocese that had them, and that the mixed choirs did stop immediately even at St Patrick's in New York. It seems ultimately that it was feministic culture that later broke up the boy choirs.
Yeah. Well, point being, female singers were very widespread prior to the motu proprio, and even after.
QuoteThe choir surely cannot be allowed to become some glorified courtship opportunity, as was suggested on another thread. How many fields and parks and meadows are there for Catholics to meet? If we feel completely indifferent about this, that means surely that we are indifferent to many potential seminarians being swept away into marriages like everyone else? Then where shall the priests come from, at this most pressing and urgent time for the Church? I still don't fully understand why there's so much indifference to this, amongst traditional priests, laity, etc.
I like to think I've dedicated enough of my life to plainchant to joke about it a bit. But in any case, it's praiseworthy to teach men and women alike how to sing chant, even while upholding all-male choirs as an attainable ideal. The reason is because women can, and should, sing the parts of the Mass (and the Divine Office) which belong to the whole congregation. Women should know chant so they can teach their children to sing it. And so on.
Priests may be indifferent to the question of mixed choirs because it wasn't addressed in their formation, or like most other people, they think of sacred music as something like background music piped in from an overhead speaker. I believe this is one of the unfortunate results of choir lofts in ecclesiastical architecture.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on April 27, 2017, 02:45:51 PM
Quote from: Julian on April 27, 2017, 12:52:40 PM
I have been a bit busy, so I'm sorry for a slow response. I personally wouldn't say they were "introduced" until Pius XII and Bugnini, even if there may have been abuses here and there. It's like saying communion in the hand was "introduced" in the Early Church because of abuses which the Church then continued to severely condemn. Chattel slavery was continually condemned by the Church, particularly by Pope Eugene IV, Benedict XIV and many others. Pope Gregory XVI said "Inspired in fact by the Divine Spirit, the Apostles, it is true, exhorted the slaves themselves to obey their masters, according to the flesh, as though obeying Christ, and sincerely to accomplish the Will of God; but they ordered the masters to act well towards slaves, to give them what was just and equitable, and to abstain from menaces, knowing that the common Master both of themselves and of the slaves is in Heaven, and that with Him there is no distinction of persons." Yes, there were many imperfect people then who committed grave abuses for financial profit, but how enslaved to the devil have so many become in these times?
This remark of mine earlier was in reference to the American bishops persisting in promoting errors, despite warnings and corrections from the papacy. I didn't mean to imply female singers had official sanction from Rome; merely that the trend had begun long before Pius X. This is indisputable.
QuoteI probably have not read as much on this issue as you have. But surely the reason they used the choir lofts was not so that any female singers wouldn't be seen, but as a place to keep all the extra choir boys? There would probably be so many choir boys they couldn't all fit in a chancel. They needed to use this huge extra space. Also, perhaps to have alternated singing from the choirs in the chancel and the choir loft. That to me makes far more sense, although I am not completely sure. I cannot see the Popes of the 17th and 18th centuries casually permitting this abuse even in a small number of churches, but I may be wrong.
Like I said, lofts were designed principally to accommodate female singers. I'll see if I can find references to this.
QuoteI had a look at the link you posted. It seems many people considered that church more an opera-event venue than anything else. It seems they even had non-Catholics in the choir. Part of the spirit of the world which later swamped large sections of the Church sadly. The book seems to say, however, that after Pius X's motu proprio, some American dioceses did in fact immediately remove all females from any of the choirs in their diocese that had them, and that the mixed choirs did stop immediately even at St Patrick's in New York. It seems ultimately that it was feministic culture that later broke up the boy choirs.
Yeah. Well, point being, female singers were very widespread prior to the motu proprio, and even after.
QuoteThe choir surely cannot be allowed to become some glorified courtship opportunity, as was suggested on another thread. How many fields and parks and meadows are there for Catholics to meet? If we feel completely indifferent about this, that means surely that we are indifferent to many potential seminarians being swept away into marriages like everyone else? Then where shall the priests come from, at this most pressing and urgent time for the Church? I still don't fully understand why there's so much indifference to this, amongst traditional priests, laity, etc.
I like to think I've dedicated enough of my life to plainchant to joke about it a bit. But in any case, it's praiseworthy to teach men and women alike how to sing chant, even while upholding all-male choirs as an attainable ideal. The reason is because women can, and should, sing the parts of the Mass (and the Divine Office) which belong to the whole congregation. Women should know chant so they can teach their children to sing it. And so on.
Priests may be indifferent to the question of mixed choirs because it wasn't addressed in their formation, or like most other people, they think of sacred music as something like background music piped in from an overhead speaker. I believe this is one of the unfortunate results of choir lofts in ecclesiastical architecture.
Thanks for the post. Sorry as well for my tone, which was unnecessarily direct and misguided. You certainly know a lot more about this than I do. And there's no doubt that females should learn Gregorian Chant and teach it to their children. The nuns used to teach the children at school, both male and female, how to sing chant. It was just only supposed to be boys/men that were to form the choir for Mass, and both Pius X and Pius XII clearly assumed this. Why there seems to be an excessive clamour for this loophole on choirs, when this still wouldn't be applied to altar servers / communion in the hand at the TLM still doesn't make sense to me. But I said this already.
If, for some reason, Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII did not contain or stop this with the pressing urgency that Pius X did, then that is what it is. These men, along with Pius XII, despite anything regrettable, were all, in particular, exceptional and very holy men who did great good for the interests of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. It can become easier to focus on "what's wrong" in the Church, I suppose. "This is wrong!". "That shouldn't happen!" And harder to focus on the good things that many Catholics did and have done for the faith. Of course though, "Error has no rights" as Pius IX himself said, and therefore we must not only try to avoid things that are wrong and misleading but also do our best to help others avoid the same errors.
It's just things like this article from "New Liturgical Movement" though that just grates my heart. Mixed choirs in plain clothes are one thing, but the females in the choir here are fully dressed in cassock and surplice. How can this be acceptable to any traditional Catholic? http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2017/04/st-marys-schola-issues-recording-of.html#.WQQg1fkrKM8
Surely there is no way this was allowed before the 1960s? Or am I wrong? Even in the Novus Ordo this sort of thing is rare. And people seem to stay silent because they don't know any different, or not to rock the boat. Is not "altar girls" at the TLM one very small step away from this? Then we might as well go to the Novus Ordo and not labour for the traditions that nurtured the Saints. So, all this stuff to me seems quite serious, but to many others does not.
If it weren't for the many great consolations Our Lord has given me in: Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lord's Sacred Heart apparitions to St Margaret Mary, Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, and the many miracles of St Padre Pio and St John Vianney among others, I might already have lost my mind in discussing issues like this and other issues that I don't personally have as many answers for. Any atheist can go and research any of these and if he is honest, he will convert to the faith. The consolation of Our Lord's miracles in the Gospels however should have been enough for me, as Our Lord tells us: "If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not. But if I do, though you will not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." Perhaps Our Lord has given us all these recent miracles knowing that these times would be chaotic, and to give us support.
I can go off on a tangent sometimes but anyway, all these things, and other issues, even if they may seem at times petty, are worth fighting to get to the truth of and discussing. God bless.
I'm surprised this has been allowed to exist but there it is...
http://stpaulchoirschool.com/ (http://stpaulchoirschool.com/)
The only Catholic boys choir school in the US.
Boys choirs always have the never ceasing threat of a professional offence taking mother or father who make a fuss because their precious darling isn't admitted. Equality legislation can then be invoked abusively because better choirs have professional directors and choristers.
Quote from: Lynne on April 29, 2017, 04:35:03 AM
I'm surprised this has been allowed to exist but there it is...
http://stpaulchoirschool.com/ (http://stpaulchoirschool.com/)
The only Catholic boys choir school in the US.
I've heard of this choir before. This school was founded in 1964. What's the point founding a choir school if the Church did not at that time expect choirs of men and boys? The answer is it did. They have the NO, but thank God, at least they are trying on this issue that very few else seem to be. That something that was seen as so fundamental for around 1600 years as male choirs should just practically disappear overnight without even as much as a peep. That I, so wretched as I am, should be someone saying these things. Very sad.
Maybe the prestige that they were based near Harvard University kept them together. It just seems pretty much every other choir school and male choir in the world got forcibly broken up after the changes.
Quote from: Prayerful on April 29, 2017, 07:04:23 AM
Boys choirs always have the never ceasing threat of a professional offence taking mother or father who make a fuss because their precious darling isn't admitted. Equality legislation can then be invoked abusively because better choirs have professional directors and choristers.
These offence-takers and professional agitators, who can no doubt crawl out of the woodwork in an instant, would surely have already attempted to shut down the aforesaid school for "discrimination"? Maybe they've not thought about it and if they did they might be successful. This is how far people bend backwards these days to "keep the peace". I would have more hope than you have because if they can have a boys choir school without fuss in a perverse liberal university town like Cambridge, MA, then you probably could have one anywhere.
Quote from: Julian on April 29, 2017, 09:04:08 AM
Quote from: Prayerful on April 29, 2017, 07:04:23 AM
Boys choirs always have the never ceasing threat of a professional offence taking mother or father who make a fuss because their precious darling isn't admitted. Equality legislation can then be invoked abusively because better choirs have professional directors and choristers.
These offence-takers and professional agitators, who can no doubt crawl out of the woodwork in an instant, would surely have already attempted to shut down the aforesaid school for "discrimination"? Maybe they've not thought about it and if they did they might be successful. This is how far people bend backwards these days to "keep the peace". I would have more hope than you have because if they can have a boys choir school without fuss in a perverse liberal university town like Cambridge, MA, then you probably could have one anywhere.
There was one or two instances with Anglican Cathedral choirs in England some time ago. A confluence leftism and religion can create a horrible person with an unlimited sense of entitlement, and an unteachable, unerring belief in their own rightness.
Quote from: Prayerful on April 29, 2017, 01:55:29 PM
There was one or two instances with Anglican Cathedral choirs in England some time ago.
There was a BBC mini-series about the politics surrounding a boys' choir.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK22gyS1qc8
Quote from: Julian on April 29, 2017, 02:43:07 AM
It's just things like this article from "New Liturgical Movement" though that just grates my heart. Mixed choirs in plain clothes are one thing, but the females in the choir here are fully dressed in cassock and surplice. How can this be acceptable to any traditional Catholic? http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2017/04/st-marys-schola-issues-recording-of.html#.WQQg1fkrKM8
Surely there is no way this was allowed before the 1960s? Or am I wrong? Even in the Novus Ordo this sort of thing is rare. And people seem to stay silent because they don't know any different, or not to rock the boat. Is not "altar girls" at the TLM one very small step away from this? Then we might as well go to the Novus Ordo and not labour for the traditions that nurtured the Saints. So, all this stuff to me seems quite serious, but to many others does not.
You are correct, I don't think any Catholic church pre-1970 would have had female choristers in cassock/surplice; and even in Novus Ordo parishes which have robed choirs, cassock/surplice would be an odd choice for women. This practice is probably inherited from those Anglican/Episcopal churches which continued the tradition of surpliced choirs in the chancel but eventually admitted women to their ranks.
A charitable (and private) comment in their direction might be of use, but I wouldn't give them too much grief since St. Mary's, Norwalk is a model diocesan parish in every other respect.
Until all-male choirs can be restored, a nice compromise for vesture is what the Juventutem choirs do: cassock/surplice for male singers, and capes in the style of religious habits for female singers.
This was discussed on MusicSacra forum. See this post (https://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/comment/60403#Comment_60403) for references. It seems the confusion is due to an equivocal use of the term "choir" (choir in the sanctuary vs. choir loft or somewhere outside the sanctuary).
Also, from here (http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__liturgical.htm#canwomensing):
QuotePART I. Can women be permitted to sing in the choir in church?
The principles are given by Pope St. Pius X in his motu proprio on the restoration of Sacred Music, and in particular of the ancient Gregorian Chant. This document of November 22, 1903, is entitled Tra le sollecitudine and is published in its entirety in the March 1995 issue of The Angelus (pp.36-40).
The pope states repeatedly that the Sacred Chant is an integral part of the liturgy, directed to the glory of God and the sanctification and edification of the faithful. (§1) It is consequently not a performance, but a part of the act of divine worship. His conclusion follows:
QuoteExcept the chant of the celebrant and the sacred ministers at the altar, which must always be sung in plainchant without any accompaniment, the rest of the liturgical singing belongs properly to the choir of clerics ...It follows from the same principle that the singers in church have a real liturgical office, and that women therefore, being incapable of such an office, cannot be admitted to the choir (§§12, 13).
[Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
PART II. Does this mean that women should not sing in church at all?
The fact that women cannot perform the liturgical office of singing does not mean that they should not sing in church at all. To the contrary, they should participate in the congregational singing. That such congregational singing is indeed the mind of the Church is indicated by Pope Pius XI in his Apostolic Constitution of Dec. 20, 1928, on the Liturgy, Gregorian Chant and Sacred Music:
QuoteIn order that the faithful may more actively participate in divine worship, let them be made once more to sing the Gregorian Chant, so far as it belongs to them to take part in it. It is most important that when the faithful assist at the sacred ceremonies... they should not be merely detached and silent spectators, but, filled with a deep sense of the beauty of the liturgy, they should sing alternately with the clergy or the choir, as it is prescribed (§IX).
There are some exceptions to the rule forbidding women from singing in choirs. One such exception is religious women in their own community. Canon Law permits them to sing the chants of Mass, if permitted by their constitutions, but providing that they are in a place where they cannot be seen by the faithful (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 1264), since they are not a choir in the liturgical sense.
Another exceptional case (and it is important that it remains exceptional) is when there is a dearth of male singers, and when it is necessary for the solemnity of the service that men and women join in the singing. (Predmore, Rev. George, Sacred Music and the Catholic Church, 1936, p.117). However,
Quote...we are to make every possible and fair effort to introduce either congregational singing of the liturgy, or to have male choirs. But the service is not to be made unbecoming, distracting, or ridiculous by literal adherence to the law, where the conditions really hinder its decorous observance (ibid. p.118).
[Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
Pope Pius XII,
Musicæ Sacræ (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_25121955_musicae-sacrae.html) (1955):
Quote74. Where it is impossible to have schools of singers or where there are not enough choir boys, it is allowed that "a group of men and women or girls, located in a place outside the sanctuary set apart for the exclusive use of this group, can sing the liturgical texts at Solemn Mass, as long as the men are completely separated from the women and girls and everything unbecoming is avoided. The Ordinary is bound in conscience in this matter."[Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, No's. 3964, 4201, 4231.]