Musicam Sacram

[romanholiday]

Does anyone know if Musicam Sacram has ever been superseded by another Vatican document on music in the liturgy? I can’t find any information that it has which has led me to a syllogism.

1. Instruments, which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions. (#63)
2. Guitars and drum-sets are by common opinion* and use suitable for secular music only.
3. Guitars and drum-sets are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.

Think about it…when you think of guitars and drum-sets, what kind of environment and music comes to mind? I bet if you asked that question on the street, just about everyone would reply rock and roll. I also bet that less then 1% would say church and religious music.

Or you could ask…Do you associate guitars and drum-sets more with secular music or church music? Again, the clear answer would be secular music.

This begs the question. If the Musicam Sacram is clear and has not be replaced, why do so many bishops, priests and lay people continue to support and defend LifeTeen, NET Team, Charismatic style music at Mass? Is it just simple ignorance of Church instructions? Or is it willful disobedience? I tend to think it is the former, especially with many priests and lay people.*

 

[NetNuncio]

Musicam Sacram has not been superseded. It has, however, been interpreted. I have found it quite interesting that those who are concerned about the SPIRIT of Vatican II are less concerned about the SPIRIT in which the Vatican II documents were written.

Ultimately, it is up to the local ordinary to decide what instruments and music styles are proper for worship. The document also says that instruments that, while secular in nature, can be MADE suitable for worship, are acceptable.

The interpretation of Musicam Sacram is, ultimately, as I said, the task of the bishop. Some will limit the use of questionable instruments to necessity only (I attended a tiny mission church once that had no organist…only a guitarist…he played very well and it the music was relatively well done). Others look at contemporary Christian music and see that “sacred” music can be in that form as well. It is also up to that bishop to decide whether or not a form of music (for example; Christian Rock), is appropriate.

It’s unfortunate that some bishops have abused or neglected a very important power. Rome doesn’t specify exacts and gives the authority to judge particular situations to bishops because the Holy See doesn’t have the time or resources to judge every situation (for example, that tiny mission church I attended). However, some bishops have relegated this decision to individual music directors or Directors of Worship who know little about music or have dubious intentions.

Just my two cents, of course.

 

[romanholiday]

Musicam Sacram has not been superseded. It has, however, been interpreted.

This I agree with! It seems many bishops, priests and lay people try to find any loophole they can to impose the happy-clappy, evangelical protestant style music on us. If a document says “may”, it gets turned into “must”. Like where Sacrosanctum Concilium says the use of vernacular “may be extended” and here we are 45 years later with 99% of Masses said in America in English or some other vernacular. They conveniently ignore the instructions on pride of place to Gregorian Chant and the organ. They ignore the instructions to teach the people basic Gregorian Chant.

And then when people point this out to them, they get upset and start attacking you for being narrow minded or Pre-Vatican II or say we need to have a more pastoral approach.

[Edited by Moderator]