Is your parish violating Musicam Sacram?

[snarflemike]

The title of the document is

SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
MUSICAM SACRAM
INSTRUCTION ON MUSIC IN THE LITURGY

I would think the term “INSTRUCTION” is pretty clear that it is binding, but I’m no canon lawyer.

As to common violations, I have attended plenty of Masses where the priest did not sing his required parts, or where the Our Father is not sung (both as per degree 1), thus making any other singing in violation.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Like I said I wasn’t even aware of the rules and don’t even know if I understand them from your post so I can’t comment on them.

Okay, this is me, also. I read them but not sure I understand them either.

 

[snarflemike]

kay, this is me, also. I read them but not sure I understand them either.

Basically, if your parish isn’t singing everything in the first degree, they shouldn’t be singing anything in the second or third degree.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Basically, if your parish isn’t singing everything in the first degree, they shouldn’t be singing anything in the second or third degree.

Thank you. That helps. I’m pretty sure I have only seen these rules followed once that I can remember and that was this past weekend. I happened to be at a parish I hadn’t been to in a long time and I thought to myself what an beautiful Mass.

 

[dochawk]

To be replaced by taped music. If that counts a “music” I don’t know. Personally, I’d rather have nothing or a capella .

I’d certainly think that taped is better than the frustrated would-be lounge singer showing off her warble in a key that the congregation can barely here, let alone join . . .

A lot of people have opinions on the music, songs and singing. For me it’s down on the list of things in Church I’m concerned with

Bad music is one thing; “music” that aggressively penetrates and shatters one’s prayerfulness and reverence as it hammers through every shred of one’s consciousness is another matter . …

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

I’m in total agreement with you snarfle, however, your OP seems a bit confusing because it doesn’t say “chant” or “sing”.

 

[Edmundus1581]

(bolding mine) So I wonder if this is meant to be binding, or only general guidelines?

Thanks. Now we’re getting somewhere, beyond speculation. “It is to be hoped” is clearly not strongly binding, in itself.

Interpreting Musicam Sacram is not so easy, so I also recommend this analysis:
https://npm.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/HovdaIV.pdf

And finally, I wonder what the purpose of the OP question is? Can someone give an example of a common violation of this instruction? It seems like it is fairly easy to abide by these norms.

Thanks again. It did find useful the explanation of “degrees” and that if you are not singing the first then you shouldn’t be singing the others. I’m sure this is very common. My parish does it.

This can hardly be the first time Catholic congregations have had to consider whether Musicam Sacram is binding on them.

I’m going to look it up. The USCCB documents are usually the clearest and easiest to find, so I’ll start there.

 

[pnewton]

I would think the term “INSTRUCTION” is pretty clear that it is binding, but I’m no canon lawyer.

That word does not have any connotation of being binding. I would say no canon lawyer would ever phrase this topic the way you did. It was done to death a month ago, and for the life of me I have no idea why Catholics like to fight about music in parishes that they will never attend. Isn’t there enough to do locally?

For me, I have adequate challenge with those parishioners I actual deal with to worry about internet crusades.

 

[snarflemike]

I’m in total agreement with you snarfle, however, your OP seems a bit confusing because it doesn’t say “chant” or “sing”.

Wow, I never picked up on that! Many thanks!

 

[OurGodIsWithUs]

LOL. That’s so sad. Music brings a whole new dimension to worship, even if it’s a little hymn!

 

[snarflemike]

for the life of me I have no idea why Catholics like to fight about music in parishes that they will never attend

So doing what the Church requests (in any matter) is now “fighting”? I would tend to think that these questions are a form of education.

 

[chessnerd321]

Honestly this seems impractical to impose across the board. Many priests don’t have the best of singing voices. And quite a bit of order 1 involves the priest singing alone. For that reason I would find it strange if this were binding in that way. But that’s just my speculation.

I suppose I’ve been at very few if any masses with this number if the prayers of the mass chanted. Most masses I’m at have some sort of music.

 

[Edmundus1581]

This can hardly be the first time Catholic congregations have had to consider whether Musicam Sacram is binding on them.

I’m going to look it up. The USCCB documents are usually the clearest and easiest to find, so I’ll start there.

Reporting back.

Google searches such as “is musicam sacram binding in the US” returned no direct information.

The best I can find, from a brief search is:

• No indication that Musicam Sacram (MS) is directly binding on parishes in 2019. It seems to be more a statement of principles than an detailed instruction.
• In the US, since MS was promulgated there have been two more recent statements on music: Music in Catholic Worship (MCW) 1972 and Sing to the Lord (STL), 2007.
• The GIRM seems to have the most recent instructions on music. Yes, it does reference Musicam Sacram but in no way that indicates MS as the more binding document.

So, my take on it is that MS is not law in the US. It’s a best a guideline. One can follow it if one chooses, but can’t call out others for “violating” it.

For other countries it’s likely to be the same. You should definitely look for the most recent statement on music from your own bishops, otherwise refer to the GIRM.

My recommendation is to be cautious with MS. As good as it is, it does date back to 1967 where the Catholic musical and liturgical world was very different to now. Some principles may still apply and others may not.

---

…It was done to death a month ago…

I’m not surprised, that’s why I’ve tried to search for previous commentary. I can’t find this CAF thread though, unfortunately. The search function usually disappoints.

---

@otjm makes very important observation below - that the OF did not even exist when MS was promulgated, so the forms of Mass envisaged by MS (Solemn, Low and High) are the only ones to which it directly applies. The personnel at these Masses and their roles are quite different to the OF, and hence the requirements for singing will be different.

 

[otjm]

Musicam Sacram was promulgated in 1967, before the OF was even completely designed, let alone approved. So if it refers to anything, it refers to the EF as it existed in 1967… Given that the vast majority (approximately 97%) of parishes do not celebrate the EF, one has to ask why a document reflecting one form of the Mass in existence at the time is somehow intended to reflect how a Mass which did not exist at the time was to be sung.

One cannot violate specific instructions for one form of Mass when that Mass i not being said. Unless it is shown that there is language making the document forward looking to something that did not exist at the time, the question is moot except for the EF.

I believe #3 of SM says "“not a collection of all the legislation on sacred music, but a statement simply of the principal norms that seem most needed at the present time”. As “the present time” was before the OF had been finished, the OF was not “at the present time” and so one has to show either documentation subsequent to SM applying it to the OF, or one is simply talking about the EF.

SM specifically speaks to the three official forms of distinction in the EF: Solemn, High, and Low Masses. Those forms do not exist in the OF; so the rules distinguishing between three things that don’t exist are meaningless when the forms are no longer in place.

That does not mean that there is nothing in SM which could be applied to the OF; but any attempt at a rigid application is impossible. Norms which do not apply cannot be violated.

 

[snarflemike]

Google searches such as “is musicam sacram binding in the US” returned no direct information.

So, my take on it is that MS is not law in the US. It’s a best a guideline. One can follow it if one chooses, but can’t call out others for “violating” it.

Surely this is a red herring. I never said in my original post that MS was binding, though I did offer an opinion later that it was. One can “violate” a “norm” just as one can “violate” a “law”, and MS certainly does speak of norms.

I also reject the notion that anybody is “calling out” anybody else. I said that I saw the norms violated far more than they were observed, and then I asked (A-S-K-E-D) what the experience of others was.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

pnewton:

for the life of me I have no idea why Catholics like to fight about music in parishes that they will never attend

So doing what the Church requests (in any matter) is now “fighting”? I would tend to think that these questions are a form of education.

“Doing” what the Church requests is different from “arguing about” what the Church requests. And as for education, it would be better to be educated from an authoritative interpretor (like a canon lawyer) than an anonymous internet interpretor.

 

[snarflemike]

“Doing” what the Church requests is different from “arguing about” what the Church requests. And as for education, it would be better to be educated from an authoritative interpretation (like a canon lawyer) than an anonymous internet interpretation.

I’m guessing that would apply to 99% of all posts here.

 

[CTBcin]

Citation please, with date, and also a strong argument that it is binding in Catholic parishes in 2019.

You can’t “violate” a recommendation, a good idea, or an old law.

You can only violate a current law.

Thanks in advance.

Musican Sacram is one of the post-conciliar documents, written as a follow-up to Sacrosanctum Concilium in 1967. It is not binding, but does “establish principle norms which seem to be more necessary for our own day” (para. 3). So while not rule of law, it is meant to be taken seriously. It provides guidance for how liturgical reform ought to be implemented.

But of course, it was largely ignored. While Musicam Sacram and Sacrosanctum Concilium allowed for exceptions, the exceptions became to rule as is often the case.

 

[Phemie]

Did you pick a random obscure church law nobody knows just so you could pick a fight with the Church for not following the rules?

This question does not seem to have been asked out of curiosity but out of hostility and the OP’s further comments prove this.

@camoderator this thread is unproductive

Musicam Sacram is not an obscure document. But, when I asked the same question at a conference it was suggested that the articles in the GIRMs of 1975 & 2002 give the entrance & Communion antiphons/hymns much more importance than MS did and that therefore the GIRM is what’s in force now.

Imagine not singing the Gospel Acclamation because you don’t sing the Creed. I don’t think I’ve ever heard the Creed sung since Vatican II. Don’t recall hearing it before then either.

 

[snarflemike]

Musicam Sacram is a papal instruction, issued in the wake of Vatican II, as a result of “problems regarding sacred music and its ministerial role,” and with the intention that “these problems appear to be able to be solved by expounding more fully certain relevant principles of the [Constitution on the Liturgy].”

What is fascinating to me is how quickly the question “but is it binding?” popped up. Paul VI writes, “It is to be hoped that pastors of souls, musicians and the faithful will gladly accept these norms and put them into practice, uniting their efforts to attain the true purpose of sacred music, ‘which is the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful.’” I guess “gladly accepting” is not the working principle here.