Liturgical Music regulations

[pprimeau1976]

As you can see, LM requires that the number of hymns be “fixed”, and that a “directory or repertory” of these hymns be produced “within five years.” This has not happened and probably won’t for some time (if at all).

Look at what you pointed out and I will remove your emphases:

If they are used widely by the faithful, they should remain relatively fixed so that confusion among the people may be avoided.

Where does it say that the number of hymns should be fixed? Also look at the if statement. It doesn’t make sense that they would want to fix the number of songs if they are widely used by the faithful.

What I think that it is saying is that if a particular hymn is widely used, the text and music should remain relatively fixed in order to avoid confusion. I have been to different churches and have seen different hymnals. Some classic hymns like “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” or “Holy God, We Praise Thy Name” have different lyrics and even are sung differently.

One Hymnal had a verse of “A Mighty Fortress…” that talked about God’s “nuclear power and might.”

Also, no body can agree as to whether there is one quarter note or two eighth notes sung in the following verse of “Holy God, We Praise Thy Name” (see bold)

In-FI-nite thy vast DO-main.

It drives me nuts as a cantor when I sing it as written (one quarter note) and everyone else sings it as two eight notes. I dare someone to say I sang it wrong!

 

[muledog]

Four options means just that four options Not four options in order of preference.
Once again, people read things into the documents that are not there to support their OPINIONS and present them as fact.

You might want to speak to someone experienced in the principles of liturgical law. Legislation from Rome begins with the preferred option first, followed by the second most-preferred option, etc.

If they wanted to set forth concrete guidelines about the music, they would choose to do so. There has been ample opportunity for the USSBC to create a list of apporved songs. (Or better yet, a list of forbidden songs) The fact that they have not choosen to do so leaves room for subjective interpretation. It doesn’t mean they have left room for folks to reinterpret their subjective guidelines and present them as fact.

Actually the U.S. bishops are in the process of issuing directives in sacred music, just as Liturgiam Authenticam directed.

I would ask that you go to the USCCB BCL website. If you have PowerPoint, you can check out their latest presentation by the Subcommittee on Liturgical Music, which sounds very promising.

You’ll see that many of today’s “favorite” worship music doesn’t meet the criteria for good music for the liturgy.

Judging from their past bickering between ICEL and the CDW, along with the problems of translations with the BCL (here and here) and recent comments by the head of the BCL (also here and here), I would question how relevant the BCL really is in implementing the directives of the Holy See regarding the liturgy.

“Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another.” - Pope Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, no. 42 [2007]

“[W]hile respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy.” - ibid, no. 42

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

Four options means just that four options Not four options in order of preference.

NOT TRUE.

In documents, the options are always listed in the order of preference.

Do you have ANY formal liturgical training in interpreting documents, or are you simply using “common sense” reading of the plain english?

 

[muledog]

Another interesting article I found concerns the approval of “alternative” hymns for the psalms and antiphons used in the propers at Mass in 1969.

Apparently (according to a National Catholic News Documentary (now Catholic News Service - CNS) report dated January 27, 1969), the Holy See approved the alternate hymns because they were awaiting the approval of an English translation of the Graduale Simplex (Simple Gradual). Surprisingly (or not), no official translation of the Simple Gradual - or the Roman Gradual for that matter - has never been produced by our bishops’ conference. my emphasis]

In February 1969, the Newsletter of the US Bishop’s Committee on the Liturgy (BCL) reported that the Holy See had approved several liturgical provisions requested by the US bishops. Among them was the approval of an English translation of The Simple Gradual and “other collections of Psalms and antiphons”:The approbation of “other collections of psalms and antiphons in English … as supplements to the Simple Gradual, for liturgical use in the dioceses of the United States, including psalms arranged in responsorial form, metrical and similar versions of psalms, provided they are used in accordance with the principles of the Simple Gradual and are selected in harmony with the liturgical season, feast, or occasion” was confirmed. (ellipsis and quotation original)

A news report on this approval published in the National Catholic News Documentary Service (now Catholic News Service) January 27, 1969 says:

This provides a wider choice of music for congregational singing at Mass as alternatives to the fixed texts of the Roman Missal.… The reason for this decision was to permit substitute texts to be used without waiting for the composition of musical settings of the antiphons of the Simple Gradual

 

[VAC]

NOT TRUE.
In documents, the options are always listed in the order of preference.
Do you have ANY formal liturgical training in interpreting documents, or are you simply using “common sense” reading of the plain english?

I was reading what I believed to be clear plain English.
Can you tell me what ‘formal liturgical training’ beyond basic language skills is required to correctly interpret that appears to be plain clear English?? Can you also provide documented proof that the options are always written in order??

This mentality SO reminds me of the middle ages when ‘the masses’ were not permitted to read, touch, much less own the bible: rolleyes:

However, I can admit when I’m proven wrong.
In any event, if the options listed are indeed OPTIONS!!!
(Unless I lack some language skill or liturgical training!! )

Then how dare any of you criticize the use of an option (“suitable hymn or other instruments”) that IS allowed??? Not as an opinion or personal preference expressed, but to say that it’s incorrect!!

 

[VAC]

The Church has learned from her past regarding bans on music. There was a time when certain chords or intervals in music were banned by the Church. The “devil’s chord” or “devil’s interval” could never be written or performed. It was your basic tritone and because of the dissonant sound and quality of this chord, it was associated with evil and thus the “diavolo”

I’m sure in a few centuries, our arguments over will music will sound just as ridiculous. God created all music and sound. To say that a particular interval or chord construction is evil is taking our own cultural and worldy beliefs, and making them into something they’re not… evil or good music for mass. I can’t imagine that our creator, whose ways are so far above ours would be pleased at this nitpicking today or in the past.

 

[Sarabande]

I’m sure in a few centuries, our arguments over will music will sound just as ridiculous. God created all music and sound. To say that a particular interval or chord construction is evil is taking our own cultural and worldy beliefs, and making them into something they’re not… evil or good music for mass. I can’t imagine that our creator, whose ways are so far above ours would be pleased at this nitpicking today or in the past.

This is probably true. The “rules” regarding sacred music that have endured for all these centuries are obviously tried and true, but things like the “Devil’s Chord” thankfully worked it’s way out of the superstitious mind set of the people. And as you said, some of these music arguments and decisions will either endure or die out like the “Devil’s Chord” belief. In some way, though, we need these debates and the rules in order to find the truth that will endure for generations, to weed out the “cultural and worldly beliefs”, as you put it, and to help ensure that we don’t make the same mistakes again.

 

[VAC]

In some way, though, we need these debates and the rules in order to find the truth that will endure for generations, to weed out the “cultural and worldly beliefs”, as you put it, and to help ensure that we don’t make the same mistakes again.

You’re probably right… although I allow these debates to stress me out more than they should, I have learned quite a bit from them, and have picked up quite a few song ideas as well.

Yes, the worldly beliefs need to be weeded out from what is truely spiritual and will endure for all time…
… and when they are, I believe it will be proven that the guitar is not the devil’s instrument, and Latin is not heaven’s only language

 

[Sarabande]

You’re probably right… although I allow these debates to stress me out more than they should, I have learned quite a bit from them, and have picked up quite a few song ideas as well.

Yes, I think we’ve all allowed these debates to stress us out a little at one point or another, especially when I first joined the forums. I have since learned to take them for what they are and actually enjoy reading them or partaking in them.

Yes, the worldly beliefs need to be weeded out from what is truely spiritual and will endure for all time…
… and when they are, I believe it will be proven that the guitar is not the devil’s instrument, and Latin is not heaven’s only language

Time will only tell. Although, even though I’m not particularily fond of strumming guitars at mass, I definitely don’t think they are the devil’s instrument. I personally love classical guitar.

 

[Rabbititus]

I was reading what I believed to be clear plain English.
Can you tell me what ‘formal liturgical training’ beyond basic language skills is required to correctly interpret that appears to be plain clear English?? Can you also provide documented proof that the options are always written in order??

This mentality SO reminds me of the middle ages when ‘the masses’ were not permitted to read, touch, much less own the bible: rolleyes:

However, I can admit when I’m proven wrong.
In any event, if the options listed are indeed OPTIONS!!!
(Unless I lack some language skill or liturgical training!! )

Then how dare any of you criticize the use of an option (“suitable hymn or other instruments”) that IS allowed??? Not as an opinion or personal preference expressed, but to say that it’s incorrect!!

When I read the quote about music I took it to be in order of preference. Not just because the options were numbered, but because it would seem to me that mass-specitic antiphons and biblical psalm texts would definately have some sort of pride of place in the liturgy over other types of songs. So that was my common sense plain-English reading.

That doesn’t make the use of hymns bad just because they aren’t the first preference.

Also, it would seem to me that needing some background in reading liturgical documents isn’t a horrible thing. I doubt the church would approve of people reading the Bible *without *ever consulting official church teaching on certain passages - otherwise our interpretations would vary as wildly as that of the protestants.

 

[richardwy]

Persons are created in the image and likeness of God and are intrinsically Good.

Brendan,

What does the Catechism teach us regarding how the fall of man altered the likness of God in us?

I’m not trying to be a smarty pants. It is worth looking up all the references. Along with the fall, original sin, all the things that went south after the fall.

I do say that God made us in his image which we still retain. But original sin and the unoriginal variety wounds and mars his likeness in us.

What God created us for and man’s state prior to the fall is all good. Nonetheless, the curse still abides. Elsewise, concupicense would not exist. And, Gen 3:15 still is so wonderfully true at the same time.

I’ve always thought it curious how some people can get so exercised about this. One would think that each person who examines their acts and conscience comes to the conclusion that “I’m not good.” Which is the truth. And all the more unsettling when the facts of our lives bear witness to it. And everyone else’s too. Not like we don’t have quite a bit of company.

Makes the Good News all the better. And I do have some very good Catholic friends who will just say over and over “I’m good etc.” Must be unsettling when the Church and the facts go against it.

The Church does not teach we are totally depraved. Because we are not.

 

[BritishCatholic]

Makes the Good News all the better. And I do have some very good Catholic friends who will just say over and over “I’m good etc.” Must be unsettling when the Church and the facts go against it.

The Church does not teach we are totally depraved. Because we are not.

Your point is well taken. As Pope John Paul II said, “we are an Easter people.”

However, the whole wonder and mystery of being a Roman Catholic is holy fear. That is what we are knowned for. Sometimes called “Catholic guilt”.

I think saying to one’s self, “I’m good and not bad” or something like that is very unorthodox. We should always admit to ourselves that we are wicked sinners and we need God’s love and mercy.

 

[muledog]

It’s a shame that some people are so bent on having liturgy “their way” that they inherit a myopic vision of the Mass. They fail to see it through the prism of 2000 years of rich Tradition.

Forget about all of those beautiful psalms and antiphons that have been passed through the generations in the introits, communion chants and offertories. You know the ones, they are listed clearly in our missals, Roman Gradual, Simple Gradual - the official liturgical books.

We’ll just sing some happy-clappy “gathering song”, since, according to some people - it’s just as good as any other option.

While we’re at it, let’s just drop the Confiteor (most celebrants do anyhow) and the Roman Canon (since it’s tooooo long and tooooooo “traditional”). Heck, let’s drop Latin, too, since it inhibits “active participation.”

We are going to end up with a shell of our former Sacrifice of the Mass. Too many of us have already forgotten so much in so little time. I hate to say it, but Pope Benedict’s efforts may be in vain.

 

[dranzal]

This mentality SO reminds me of the middle ages when ‘the masses’ were not permitted to read, touch, much less own the bible

FYI Vac, I think the bible was not widely owned because of its expense, not a lack of permission to read it. And bibles were chained in the churches not to keep them from the people, but to protect them from being stolen like today’s public phone phonebooks.

Some of the frustration may be from the impression that since the documents appear to afford some leeway, runaway CD’s take advantage of the language to mean virtually any song is just dandy. For example, Lionel Richie’s song “Hello” is NOT an appropriate song for Mass even if you can twist some of the words to appear more “religious”. Here I am deliberately choosing an obvious bad choice. There are many grayer areas that CD’s routinely delve into.

More conservative (not politically) minded people might, instead, opt for staying as true to the guidelines as possible, not weilding them in defense of any old song. Rather implementing them to temper the available choices in an attempt to genuinely follow Church teaching and tradition.

Don’t fret Vac, I can see both sides of the coin here. This is why I did not volunteer for your job.

See you shortly.

 

[VAC]

It’s a shame that some people are so bent on having liturgy “their way” that they inherit a myopic vision of the Mass. They fail to see it through the prism of 2000 years of rich Tradition

I still do not understand the criticism of ***allowed ***options that are not your personal favorite. A third or fourth option is still an allowed option regardless of whether someone is getting their way.

Forget about all of those beautiful psalms and antiphons that have been passed through the generations in the introits, communion chants and offertories. You know the ones, they are listed clearly in our missals, Roman Gradual, Simple Gradual - the official liturgical books.

They aren’t forgotten… not everyone has heard them . Not every church has missals.

We’ll just sing some happy-clappy “gathering song”, since, according to some people - it’s just as good as any other option

. As good as any other allowed option; not according to ‘some people’ but according to church documents.

While we’re at it, let’s just drop the Confiteor (most celebrants do anyhow) and the Roman Canon (since it’s tooooo long and tooooooo “traditional”). Heck, let’s drop Latin, too, since it inhibits “active participation.”

Are there not 2 options in the GIRM that permit the Confiteor to be omitted? If it maked you feel better, our priest says it every week.
I also understood that full concious and active participation are very important to our Chruch’s leadership in more than one document.

We are going to end up with a shell of our former Sacrifice of the Mass. Too many of us have already forgotten so much in so little time. I hate to say it, but Pope Benedict’s efforts may be in vain

If the Pope or US bishops decides tomorrow to eliminate any of these alllowed options, then they will no longer be allowed. If this is his preference, The Pope and the bishops have the authority to act. If they do, it would not be in vain.

 

[VAC]

FYI Vac, I think the bible was not widely owned because of its expense, not a lack of permission to read it. And bibles were chained in the churches not to keep them from the people, but to protect them from being stolen like today’s public phone phonebooks.

They still have public phone books?? I haven’t seen one in years… True bible’s were chained down, and mass publishings didn’t happen for centuries, but there were many instances in history when certain groups were considered unworthy of education…

For example, Lionel Richie’s song “Hello” is NOT an appropriate song for Mass even if you can twist some of the words to appear more “religious”. Here I am deliberately choosing an obvious bad choice. There are many grayer areas that CD’s routinely delve into.

Uh, Dranzal, you should have been at practice today, we’re singing that song next week… along with ‘Stairway to Heaven’ "I’m KIDDING!!!

More conservative (not politically) minded people might, instead, opt for staying as true to the guidelines as possible, not weilding them in defense of any old song. Rather implementing them to temper the available choices in an attempt to genuinely follow Church teaching and tradition.

Using the options allowed by the church guidelines does not constitute not following their teachings; (traditions, maybe.)

Don’t fret Vac, I can see both sides of the coin here. This is why I did not volunteer for your job.

I’m cool. But I’m still expecting a rotten egg toss when we play “In Christ there is a table set for all” From the modernists, because it’s uses Old English and it’s slow, and from the traditionalists because we substituted the word ‘sinners’ for ‘harlots’ in the third verse. You can’t please everybody:shrug:

 

[muledog]

VAC,

I thought I’d write one last post, and hope that you read it with an open mind. I found it at CatholicCulture.org, and it was written by Michael Lawrence. It’s entitled Propers or “other suitable songs”? An interesting read. Portions of it as follows:

It is quite probable that most Catholics are unaware of the propers and that they would be surprised to find out that the only hymns integral to the Mass itself are the Gloria and the Sanctus. Even many Catholics who consider themselves to be traditional are perfectly content with using hymns at the Mass in place of the propers.

It should be said that the use of a hymn (the Church calls it "another suitable song"1) instead of a proper is permissible, but how many people might question this practice, particularly in light of liturgical tradition, if the subject were pondered at length?

The propers, after all, have been around for centuries, indeed the great majority of the history of the Church. By the eighth century, each one had its particular place in the liturgical year. It seems then that they ought to be fostered with the greatest of care. Before they can be implemented, however, there must be an understanding as to why they ought to occupy so prominent a place in our liturgical life.

Therefore it seems necessary to make the case that the propers of the *Graduale Romanum *are theologically, liturgically, and musically most suitable to the Mass of the Roman Rite.

Hymn texts can be vague, questionable, or even theologically erroneous. This has necessitated the present conversation in the bishops’ conference about the suitability of the various hymn texts. Ironically, many Protestant hymns, especially adaptations of hymns from the Divine Office, are actually more true to Catholic doctrine than some of the contemporary songs which are considered Catholic.

Propers, on the other hand, carry the guarantee of orthodoxy, having come from tradition or scripture. It is particularly noteworthy that the propers help to fulfill the Second Vatican Council’s call for the use of more scripture at Mass, particularly the psalms. (This is, of course, in addition to the council’s call for more emphasis on Gregorian chant.)