While I've cantored in the past I am not presently a Cantor. I may once again function in that way but our congregation is now blessed with nine Cantors who are much superior to me. I realize now that I should not be posting on this forum.

God bless you all.

Dan L

I suggest then:

1-Create a full and clear definition of cantor. I would say someone who stands at the Kliros with the blessing of the priest to lead services or assist the person leading services by invitation of the cantor or the priest.

2-Include in the cantor definition note what is and is not on-topic. I would have hoped in posting my thread that cantors could discuss constructive ways to approach the coming liturgical reforms. Our responsibility to lead and teach this music gives us a specific twist that is not necessarily served in the general liturgy thread. This did work at the start where we saw process and names to contact. It did desend rapidly from there.

3-Create a permanent top "Introductions" Thread. Here each poster would place their brief self-description of their cantor responsibility level and general experience in music and church leadership.

Steve

I support Steve's recommendations.

Jim

OK. For the Klrios form how about this formal definition of a cantor:

Cantor: One who has the blessing of his or her priest to lead the chanting of the Divine Services or has an invitation by the priest or cantor to assist in leading the chanting of the Divine Services. This would include anyone who occasionally gets a frantic call from a priest: “No one else can make it, please come and chant the Liturgy” but not someone who just happens to like to stand near the cantor and is not shooed away.

It is possible to take this forum private, but we would have to rely on each individual’s word as to whether they function as cantor or not. That might be the best course. [I ask for your input on this.] Also, clergy are always welcome. Also, we cannot limit this to just the Ruthenian Church. We can, however, limit it to the Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox).

I would prefer to keep the definition of what is acceptable for discussion very broad. It is my opinion that those who support the proposed liturgical revisions have an obligation to speak for them and to convince others that they are good for the Church, and those who oppose the proposed liturgical revisions have an obligation to speak against them and to convince others that they are not good for the Church. I do not see any reason for cantors not to be part of this discussion. I also do not see the discussion ending until, very literally, “Rome has spoken and the case is closed” (surely there will be direct appeals to Rome over this revision).

It is appealing to simply state that a discussion of the possible reforms is off topic. But since the reforms affect the liturgical rubrics, texts and musical settings I don’t think declaring it off topic would work.

People can start posting in that thread now.

Admin

On Going Private

I believe that taking the forum private is a good idea, because of the potential for controversy when dealing with intra-parish issues as a cantor. Participants would need to provide their cantor bio within the Introduction thread. A deadline for doing so will likely be necessary. After that, additional parties interested in participating would need a mechanism to request access. PMing a moderator would get their attention, then access would need to be set up. Perhaps whatever method is used to establish Deacon's Door access could be used (except, of course, for the official recognition part). The Cantor's bio would still need to be made available within the Introduction thread.

On Posting Elsewhere

With the private environment in effect, someone, not necessarily a moderator, could start a separate thread elsewhere, such as in Town Hall, or Faith & Worship, if a topic has broader implications than for Kliros. The Kliros topic does not necessarily have to be moved. That way the topic can receive scrutiny for reasons other than those of Kliros when warranted, and Kliros participants can continue to focus on their concerns without necessarily having to address the wider audience, and there is likely less occasion for going off-topic.

On Who is a Cantor

I also believe that the definition of cantor that our Administrator has put forwarded is pretty accurate as to who should be regarded as a cantor, and who should not be, at least within the Ruthenian tradition of the Byzantine Catholic Church. It ties in to the saying, "All cantors are singers, but not all singers are necessarily cantors."

Jim