Any word on Sacred Music from the USCCB?

[Brendan]

benedictgal

Who said they were addressing a problem?

Apparently the problem wasn’t big enough, because from what I’ve read so far, they didn’t change anything, to your way of thinking.

Sorry!

Jim

If there wasn’t a problem, it would not have been on the agenda at all. But it was, mostly because Rome has demanded that Liturgical Music be brought in line with the requirements of Liturgicam Autheticam (in much the same way that Rome required that the texts used in Mass adhere to the same document).

And it still hasn’t yet, so all the bishops did was to push the required resolution off to a later meeting.

That doesn’t mean that it still doesn’t need to be done.

This is from the USCCB powerpoint brief that Benedictgal was referrring to

…Within five years from the publication of this Instruction, the Conferences of Bishops, necessarily in collaboration with the national and diocesan Commissions and with other experts, shall provide for the publication of a directory or repertory of texts intended for liturgical singing. This document shall be transmitted for the necessary recognitio to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

So the bishops have to provide a list of hymns to Rome for approval, and they have not yet done this in the time allotted.

 

[lak611]

If there wasn’t a problem, it would not have been on the agenda at all. But it was, mostly because Rome has demanded that Liturgical Music be brought in line with the requirements of Liturgicam Autheticam (in much the same way that Rome required that the texts used in Mass adhere to the same document).

And it still hasn’t yet, so all the bishops did was to push the required resolution off to a later meeting.

That doesn’t mean that it still doesn’t need to be done.

Will Rome eventually force them to do something if they keep stalling?

 

[benedictgal]

Will Rome eventually force them to do something if they keep stalling?

We shall see when the Holy Father gets here. Until then, I am most anxious to read the document. These two weeks can’t come soon enough.

 

[peary]

Of course, the USCCB was supposed to have fixed this problem during last week’s meeting. The original document, from what I understand, was supposed to conform things to Liturgical Authenticam and then be sent to Rome for the required recognitio. Howvever, prior to the meeting the National Pastoral Musicians Association asked the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions to pass a resolution that, in effect, requested maintaining the status quo. The end result is a document that didn’t pass by the required 2/3 (to send it to Rome) and may or may not have much teeth to it.
.

It’s really up to pastoral musicians who have an education behind them and liturgists now to go beyond the USCCB and do what is necessary to bring church music up to a higher level. I don’t think music is high up on the bishops’ list of ‘to do’ things.

 

[benedictgal]

It’s really up to pastoral musicians who have an education behind them and liturgists now to go beyond the USCCB and do what is necessary to bring church music up to a higher level. I don’t think music is high up on the bishops’ list of ‘to do’ things.

Peary, I don’t think that’s the answer. They were the ones who hijacked the document in the first place. I don’t think you read my earlier posts.

We’ll have to wait and see what the actual document has and doesn’t have.

 

[JButky]

Joe, the powerpoint that I have been referring to in this thread (and in others) does suggest that we have a common repertoire of songs for the Mass. Again, not having seen the document yet, I’m not sure if this was included in the final version.

The PPT draft norms states that a common repertoire of liturgical songs will be formulated within 2 years. One currently does not exist. Who knows when and if such a documents will come forth.

Once again that leaves everything in the hands of publishers and not the Church. It is a reactive posture, rather than a proactive one. And popes and others have written tremendously in reactive fashion to only be ignored by “interpretive” sources.

And right now they are really only talking about the texts themselves. There are still many, many years to go for fixing the problem as long this reactive posture is the norm.

If it continues in this fashion, you will see even more official writings and instructions that will also go largely ignored or subsequently interpreted and reintroduced at the whim of publishers.

Joe B

 

[Brendan]

The PPT draft norms states that a common repertoire of liturgical songs will be formulated within 2 years. One currently does not exist. Who knows when and if such a documents will come forth.

Once again that leaves everything in the hands of publishers and not the Church. It is a reactive posture, rather than a proactive one. And popes and others have written tremendously in reactive fashion to only be ignored by “interpretive” sources.

I would disagree.

The bishops are the ones who have been tasked by Rome to complie the repertoire of songs and submit them for approval to Rome.

If Rome doesn’t like the list, it doesn’t approve it.

The only say the publishers will have is if they decide to print or not.

 

[Brendan]

Will Rome eventually force them to do something if they keep stalling?

It’s going to be a multi year process, similar to that for the Mass texts.

But,like the new Mass texts, it will happen and it will be in line with Rome’s vision.

 

[lak611]

It’s going to be a multi year process, similar to that for the Mass texts.

But,like the new Mass texts, it will happen and it will be in line with Rome’s vision.

That is good to know.

 

[JButky]

I would disagree.

The bishops are the ones who have been tasked by Rome to complie the repertoire of songs and submit them for approval to Rome.

Since you disagree, show me when and where the list of music we have published today has gone through that process.

If that has been the process, why are they needing to do it now?

The only “approval” process I know of right now, is if a publisher likes it and thinks they can make money of it, then it gets published. (and of course it has to fit in with their “interpretation” of loosely worded guidelines.)

If there were an approved process, you wouldn’t have this hymnal, and that hymnal and another over here and there, none of which need to be similar in style or content.

At least IF there were an approval process, It would be contained in EVERY hymnal.

The only one I know of is the Graduale Romanum and that collection is fairly recently available. And who uses it or even knows it exists?

At least that’s the only official collection I know of.

Joe B

 

[Brendan]

Since you disagree, show me when and where the list of music we have published today has gone through that process.

I don’t ‘disagree’ with you. What I said was that the bishop’s were tasked with doing this. I didn’t say they have actually gotten around to DOING it.

In fact, I said just the opposite, that they HAVEN"T done it.

If that has been the process, why are they needing to do it now?

The requirement is a result of Pope John Paul issuing “Liturgicam Authenticam” In that document, it placed a requirement on the various national bishop’s conferences to create a standard repertoir of music for that nation, and to submit the list to the Vatican for approval.

The have 5 years from the publication of L.A. to comply. Since L.A. was issued in 2001, they are bit late already.

The only “approval” process I know of right now, is if a publisher likes it and thinks they can make money of it, then it gets published. (and of course it has to fit in with their “interpretation” of loosely worded guidelines.)

Read Liturgicam Authenticam

Specifically para 108

Basically, the bishops were tasked to provide a list of a limited number of hymns to the Vatican for approval. From there, a common hymnal is to be created.

But that’s not what the bishops appeared to have accomplished at their last meeting.

 

[lak611]

I don’t ‘disagree’ with you. What I said was that the bishop’s were tasked with doing this. I didn’t say they have actually gotten around to DOING it.

In fact, I said just the opposite, that they HAVEN"T done it.

The requirement is a result of Pope John Paul issuing “Liturgicam Authenticam” In that document, it placed a requirement on the various national bishop’s conferences to create a standard repertoir of music for that nation, and to submit the list to the Vatican for approval.

The have 5 years from the publication of L.A. to comply. Since L.A. was issued in 2001, they are bit late already.

Read Liturgicam Authenticam

Specifically para 108

Basically, the bishops were tasked to provide a list of a limited number of hymns to the Vatican for approval. From there, a common hymnal is to be created.

But that’s not what the bishops appeared to have accomplished at their last meeting.

Do you think we will see the changes to the Mass rubrics or to the music first? I know the Creed is being changed, pro multis is going to be accurately translated, etc. Is this going to happen before the music reforms are put into place?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Do you think we will see the changes to the Mass rubrics or to the music first? I know the Creed is being changed, pro multis is going to be accurately translated, etc. Is this going to happen before the music reforms are put into place?

There is a difference between translations into the vernacular and rubrics. But, seeing that the new translations have already been sent to Rome for the Recognitio - if they are approved by Rome I would say that yes they will happen before any concrete reforms of music.

 

[lak611]

Hello,

There is a difference between translations into the vernacular and rubrics.

Oops. I meant to say translations.

But, seeing that the new translations have already been sent to Rome for the Recognitio - if they are approved by Rome I would say that yes they will happen before any concrete reforms of music.

Ok.

 

[pnewton]

Thanks. I am re-reading it as well as some other documents (and A New Song for the Lord-B16’s second book on the liturgy). My parochial vicar once told me that if I’m going to engage in document warfare, I need to read as much as I can.

Hey, did you get the cold front yet?

Oh yes! It’s a wonderful, wintery weekend.

 

[pnewton]

**It’s really up to pastoral musicians who have an education behind them and liturgists now to go beyond the USCCB and do what is necessary to bring church music up to a higher level. **

Or lower level. There are plenty of people out there, like benedictgal, that help to make changes one parish at a time. I may not agree with everyone here on all the details, but I do on the basic responsibilities: to educate myself as to Church teaching, make sure, heretical songs are not used, and try to integrate all new rulings as best we can. Fortunately, I have a lot of say over the music at my parish, especially since we are down to just two musicians now.

I have come across others here that also take care of the music for their parish. Sometimes the best changes happen at the lowest level, one person at a time.

 

[Brendan]

Do you think we will see the changes to the Mass rubrics or to the music first? I know the Creed is being changed, pro multis is going to be accurately translated, etc. Is this going to happen before the music reforms are put into place?

Definately the Mass text.

 

[JButky]

I don’t ‘disagree’ with you. What I said was that the bishop’s were tasked with doing this. I didn’t say they have actually gotten around to DOING it.

Sorry, It didn’t come across that way.

In fact, I said just the opposite, that they HAVEN"T done it.

The have 5 years from the publication of L.A. to comply. Since L.A. was issued in 2001, they are bit late already.

I’ve read LA, and it is just the latest in directives. The basic gist of LA was in the original Musicam Sacram and was ignored. These things have been going on for some time. Read my previous posts. Give me a reason to suspect that I should anticipate this being completed. All the other attempts have failed.

The original directives from VA II haven’t been implemented yet, We virtually never “heard” them. That’s why we have this situation in the first place.

Joe B

 

[lak611]

Sorry, It didn’t come across that way.

I’ve read LA, and it is just the latest in directives. The basic gist of LA was in the original Musicam Sacram and was ignored. These things have been going on for some time. Read my previous posts. Give me a reason to suspect that I should anticipate this being completed. All the other attempts have failed.

The original directives from VA II haven’t been implemented yet, We virtually never “heard” them. That’s why we have this situation in the first place.

Joe B

When was the USCCB originally told to do something about the music in the Mass?

 

[Brendan]

. Give me a reason to suspect that I should anticipate this being completed.

Because the Mass is being translated according to LA.

The bishops had to follow LA to produce a Mass text, they’ll have do follow LA in Music as well.