Is your parish violating Musicam Sacram?

[CTBcin]

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?

Musicam Sacram is not an obscure rule, but rather a very significant post-conciliar document. I think the OP asks a legitimate question, though perhaps not worded in the best way.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think this Zenit q and a posted on EWTN pretty much says it all about Musicam Sacram in the USA:

What About 1967's Musicam Sacram? | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

With that, I am muting the thread, as the last thing I need to read is the 1,000,000th thread where Catholics bicker over Mass music.

 

[CTBcin]

• 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.

I’m no canon lawyer, but I would say that the GIRM is the most binding of documents. An individual bishop may also issue liturgical directives for his diocese (Abp. Sample comes to mind). I would put much more weight on the GIRM than Sing to the Lord.

 

[Edmundus1581]

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.

Thanks for the info from the conference!

The only two times and places I’ve heard the creed sung by the congregation have been:

• Late 1970s in the Anglican Church. The setting was Mass for the King of Glory by Betty Pulkingham, who managed to make guitar music for Mass acceptable, with SATB, light folk, style.

Eg. The Agnus Dei https://www.communityofcelebration.com/shop/media/clips/Jesus_Lamb_of_God.mp3

My church had a very capable youth choir who sounded just like that!

I liked it very much at the time but now I’m too old and I don’t think it would appeal to today’s youth. That clip is a lovely relic of the '70s!

• A Mass in the Anglican ordinariate, quite recently, ie. Anglican again! The congregation chanted it and I don’t think it worked very well. It just felt like too much effort and was distracting.

 

[pulchraesamicamea]

No violations in my church that I know of according to the Musicam Sacram.
We do first and second degree during weekday Masses and Sunday Masses probably do the third degree as well.

 

[pnewton]

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.

In a situation like this, personal post searches do the trick. I was able to look back at my history and found it, if you want to peruse it, but it is 500+ posts long.

The Power of Music Liturgy and Sacraments

Music is not just preference; it is power - the power to shape belief and attitude. I’ve read the newest GIRM more than once. Admittedly, I’ve read it part by part and with anxiety. My understanding of the document (someone correct me if I’m wrong) is that Latin chant should have pride of place and that the purpose of music is to unite the faithful in sung prayer. The GIRM also dismisses the idea of music as performance, if I understand correctly. Those concepts are the exact opposite of what…

 

[pnewton]

I’m no canon lawyer, but I would say that the GIRM is the most binding of documents. An individual bishop may also issue liturgical directives for his diocese (Abp. Sample comes to mind).

Having read his directives, they seem very reasonable, but they also allow a lot of latitude, including what has been called here violations.

 

[Edmundus1581]

In a situation like this, personal post searches do the trick. I was able to look back at my history and found it, if you want to peruse it, but it is 500+ posts long.
The Power of Music

Thanks! Fortunately with a quick look I found a post with a quote from the GIRM which directly addresses the subject of this thread (called “degrees” in MS).

In the choosing of the parts actually to be sung, however, preference should be given to those that are of greater importance and especially to those to be sung by the priest or the deacon or the lector, with the people responding, or by the priest and people together.[49]

Citation [49] is Musicam Sacram. That is clearly for supporting information however, rather than being an instruction to closely follow it. The “should” and looser wording of the GIRM are the actual instruction.

I would like it to be followed more than it is - at least as I’ve seen in the majority of parishes in Australia. @snarflemike does make a good point, when we overlook talk of “violations”. It has been useful to be referred back to the earlier papal instruction.

 

[GiftofMercy]

Degrees of what?

And how does a degree influence , refer to, or regulate the liturgical choices the liturgy team has .

 

[Phemie]

Degrees of what?

And how does a degree influence , refer to, or regulate the liturgical choices the liturgy team has .

I think the first post makes it clear. What Musicam Sacram says is that if the dialogue between the priest and the congregation, the Preface, the Doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer, the Lord’s Prayer, etc. aren’t sung, nothing else should be. That is the complete opposite of what we normally get, which is the 4 hymn sandwich with no musical filling.

What’s done in most of the parishes I’ve attended is mainly singing what’s of the second and third degree and rarely, if ever, singing anything that’s in the first degree. The idea that we have to sing an Entrance & Recessional hymn but that it’s perfectly OK not to sing anything else is the complete opposite of what Musicam Sacram intends.

 

[GiftofMercy]

I think the first post makes it clear.

Premie with respect, the first post does not make it clear, thats why I asked,
What is the definition of ‘degree’

I am in a Choir, we sing one of the Sunday masses. We sing what the liturgical committee decide we sing, they do give us a couple of choices. We also sing the Agnus Dei , the Gospel Acclamation, the Sanctus, Dismissals, sometimes the Gloria, the Lords Prayer as well as Processional hymns and communion hymns. We also sing the Amens and the Mysterium Fidei, ( depending on which one the particular Priest wants).

We sing the Psalm as well.

 

[Phemie]

Musicam Sacram defines the degrees saying that those things that are in the first degree are most important to be sung and those in the third degree are least important to be sung and that if those things that are of the first degree are not sung then nothing else is to be sung. That it’s more important to sing the dialogue and the Prayer after Communion than the Gloria, the Psalm, the Gospel Acclamation or the Entrance Hymn and Communion . Which is the total opposite of what is done most everywhere.

You as a member of a choir have little say in the matter. I’d be inclined to believe that nobody on the liturgy committee has ever read Musicam Sacram and honestly, I doubt that many priests have read it. I’ve encountered very few who bother to sing anything. You might get an occasional priest who sings the Doxology, but they all want an Entrance Hymn.

We had one Pastor who sang the Preface at all Sunday Masses. Even after being told by the religious brother who lived with him that he couldn’t sing and would be better off just reading it, he put in hours practicing each week. No, his voice wasn’t great, but he thought it was very important to sing the Preface and I’m sure that if he’d been able to most of his parts of the Mass would have been chanted. But he’s the only one among the dozens I’ve experienced who felt that way.

 

[Mi_Rose]

In Church documents words have specific meanings. Should does not mean must.
Also what do directions for the old Latin mass have to do with the Ordinary Form?
That is the totality of what I have gotten from this thréad.

 

[GiftofMercy]

You as a member of a choir have little say in the matter. I’d be inclined to believe that nobody on the liturgy committee has ever read Musicam Sacram and honestly, I doubt that many priests have read it.

As a member of the choir we discuss hymn choices given us by the Liturgical committee for particular Sundays. The liturgical committee at my Diocese is pretty clued in. Its head shares an office across from the Bishop, who has written Masses and dictates which Mass is sung regularly. But we may be, and do sound like an exception Many of our Priests sing Masses depending on the occasion.

 

[Phemie]

In Church documents words have specific meanings. Should does not mean must.
Also what do directions for the old Latin mass have to do with the Ordinary Gorm?
That is the totality of what I have gotten from this thréad.

Except that it wasn’t about “the old Latin Mass” in 1967, it was about the new Order of Mass that was in effect at the time. Not quite the Mass of today, but certainly not the Mass of 1962.

It’s telling that the GIRM of today still refers us to Musicam Sacram when deciding what to sing. But it doesn’t refer us to the degrees articles but specifically to articles 7 & 16 which say

7- Between the solemn, fuller form of liturgical celebration, in which everything that demands singing is in fact sung, and the simplest form, in which singing is not used, there can be various degrees according to the greater or lesser place allotted to singing. However, in selecting the parts which are to be sung, one should start with those that are by their nature of greater importance, and especially those which are to be sung by the priest or by the ministers, with the people replying, or those which are to be sung by the priest and people together. The other parts may be gradually added according as they are proper to the people alone or to the choir alone.

16- One cannot find anything more religious and more joyful in sacred celebrations than a whole congregation expressing its faith and devotion in song. Therefore the active participation of the whole people, which is shown in singing, is to be carefully promoted as follows:

(a) It should first of all include acclamations, responses to the greetings of the priest and ministers and to the prayers of litany form, and also antiphons and psalms, refrains or repeated responses, hymns and canticles.[16]

(b) Through suitable instruction and practices, the people should be gradually led to a fuller—indeed, to a complete—participation in those parts of the singing which pertain to them.

( c) Some of the people’s song, however, especially if the faithful have not yet been sufficiently instructed, or if musical settings for several voices are used, can be handed over to the choir alone, provided that the people are not excluded from those parts that concern them. But the usage of entrusting to the choir alone the entire singing of the whole Proper and of the whole Ordinary, to the complete exclusion of the people’s participation in the singing, is to be deprecated.

 

[Mi_Rose]

4 in the Preface says “It is hoped.”.
That does not mean should or must.
It is commendable to hold oneself to a higher standard than required but not to presume others have the ability to go above and beyond.

 

[CTBcin]

Having read his directives, they seem very reasonable, but they also allow a lot of latitude, including what has been called here violations.

Yes, I have read them too. I think he has the pastoral sensitivity to allow a degree of latitude while also trying to promote what the documents of the Church have said regarding sacred music.

 

[CTBcin]

4 in the Preface says “It is hoped.”.
That does not mean should or must.
It is commendable to hold oneself to a higher standard than required but not to presume others have the ability to go above and beyond.

I would argue that “hoped” = should. Must is too strong, as the document is not binding.

The problem is that parishes have not seemed to take much from Musicam Sacram, but have gone in the opposite direction. Or, as I’ve said before, the exceptions allowed have become the rule. As a result, most parishes don’t hold themselves to a high standard towards the musical directives of the Church. And many parishes aren’t either simply don’t care or actively oppose renewal in the Church’s music. So, instead of the ideal, such as chanting the antiphons, most parishes do the least preferred option, which is singing a trite hymn.

But I can rant on and on about music, so I’ll stop there.

 

[OraLabora]

The OP forgot this part:

1. Between the solemn, fuller form of liturgical celebration, in which everything that demands singing is in fact sung, and the simplest form, in which singing is not used, there can be various degrees according to the greater or lesser place allotted to singing. However, in selecting the parts which are to be sung, one should start with those that are by their nature of greater importance, and especially those which are to be sung by the priest or by the ministers, with the people replying, or those which are to be sung by the priest and people together. The other parts may be gradually added according as they are proper to the people alone or to the choir alone.

Clearly it is a guideline, which must consider the skills of the singers. Musica Sacram is not a set of rules, but of norms to strive for.

 

[CTBcin]

The OP forgot this part:

Yep. Cherrypicking always muddles things up.