non-manmade music from instrument

[benedictgal]

Required 50 years ago. And the Bishop’s message is placed at the point of the Homily. And he does refer to that Sunday’s Gospel. It is an appeal for stewardship and a call to know the Gospel. Sounds like a Homily to me.

I will trust the leadership of my Parish.

It is not quite a homily. Yes, our bishop uses Scripture, in this case, the whole thing was centered around the Second Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians. But, that was not a homily, not in the least.

This is what the homily should be, according to Redemptionis Sacramentum:

64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself,142 “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson.143 In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate”.144

[67.] Particular care is to be taken so that the homily is firmly based upon the mysteries of salvation, expounding the mysteries of the Faith and the norms of Christian life from the biblical readings and liturgical texts throughout the course of the liturgical year and providing commentary on the texts of the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass, or of some other rite of the Church.147 It is clear that all interpretations of Sacred Scripture are to be referred back to Christ Himself as the one upon whom the entire economy of salvation hinges, though this should be done in light of the specific context of the liturgical celebration. In the homily to be given, care is to be taken so that the light of Christ may shine upon life’s events. Even so, this is to be done so as not to obscure the true and unadulterated word of God: for instance, treating only of politics or profane subjects, or drawing upon notions derived from contemporary pseudo-religious currents as a source.148

[68.] The diocesan Bishop must diligently oversee the preaching of the homily,149 also publishing norms and distributing guidelines and auxiliary tools to the sacred ministers, and promoting meetings and other projects for this purpose so that they may have the opportunity to consider the nature of the homily more precisely and find help in its preparation.

This document was written in 2004, so it supercedes whatever came before it that was to the contrary.

 

[kage_ar]

It was 1958 when this was written. TV was just getting started (the Yukon did not have a station until 1972!). They had no idea what an impact it would have on Catholics if they could transmit Sermons to the world!

Actually, Catholic broadcasting was very popular when this was written.

Bishop Fulton Sheen’s “Life is Worth Living” had been on air since 1951, drawing 30 million viewers each week. It won an Emmy in 1952 (only one other Catholic broadcast has won an Emmy since then).

 

[benedictgal]

Actually, Catholic broadcasting was very popular when this was written.

Bishop Fulton Sheen’s “Life is Worth Living” had been on air since 1951, drawing 30 million viewers each week. It won an Emmy in 1952 (only one other Catholic broadcast has won an Emmy since then).

That is true. There are millions around the world who make it a point to watch the Papal Midnight Mass. I make it a point to watch as many of Pope Benedict’s Masses that I can because I love hearing him preach and I really enjoy the sacred music.

However, the issue of a televised liturgy has nothing to do with the fact that non-man-made music is still forbidden.

 

[kage_ar]

However, the issue of a televised liturgy has nothing to do with the fact that non-man-made music is still forbidden.

Agree 1000000 %. Soundtracks or sequenced trax are just kinda cheesey, they make me groan - I mean, the Parishioners KNOW there is not a string section in the building, they are right up there with plastic flowers.

For a non-liturgical music event, that is different - Mass is REAL, and the music should be real or nothing at all.

 

[Digitonomy]

• De musica sacra et sacra liturgia
  (Instruction on Sacred Music and Sacred Liturgy)
  Sacred Congregation for Rites - September 3, 1958

Quote:
71. The use of automatic instruments and machines, such as the automatic organ, phonograph, radio, tape or wire recorders, and other similar machines, is absolutely forbidden in liturgical functions and private devotions, whether they are held inside or outside the church, even if these machines be used only to transmit sermons or sacred music, or to substitute for the singing of the choir or faithful, or even just to support it.

hosea:

Our Church is equipped to ‘transmit’ the service from the Main Sanctuary to the other building adjacent for special masses where the main church cannot accomodate the large congregation. So there is an entire congregation celebrating Holy Mass by watching a transmitted signal. That transmission includes the music, lectors, Priests, Homilies, everything; electronically transmitted.

There is a loophole here depending on what is meant when they insert the word “radio.” The document doesn’t actually mention “transmissions,” the word you are focussing on. The machines other than radios all fall squarely within the realm of automatic instruments reproducing recorded music. If that’s the only use of radios that’s prohibited, then simply transmitting live signal would seem to be permissible. If the overflow building is adjacent, it’s not really any different from an overflow congregation hearing the mass on the church steps over the loudspeakers. If the building is clear across the parking lot, I would say it’s a different story. The trouble is that to accept this interpretation, we have to ignore the plain meaning, where radios are classified as automatic machines. Since many speakers in churches these days are connected not with wires but by radio, I agree with you that a literal interpretation is doubtful, and the subject is ripe for clarification.

hosea:

And as to Private devotions: does that mean you cannot listen to a sacred CD while you are meditating in your own home?

Excellent question. I’d be very interested in exactly what that passage is intended to mean, if we are not to read it literally.

 

[benedictgal]

There is a loophole here depending on what is meant when they insert the word “radio.” The document doesn’t actually mention “transmissions,” the word you are focussing on. The machines other than radios all fall squarely within the realm of automatic instruments reproducing recorded music. If that’s the only use of radios that’s prohibited, then simply transmitting live signal would seem to be permissible. If the overflow building is adjacent, it’s not really any different from an overflow congregation hearing the mass on the church steps over the loudspeakers. If the building is clear across the parking lot, I would say it’s a different story. The trouble is that to accept this interpretation, we have to ignore the plain meaning, where radios are classified as automatic machines. Since many speakers in churches these days are connected not with wires but by radio, I agree with you that a literal interpretation is doubtful, and the subject is ripe for clarification.Excellent question. I’d be very interested in exactly what that passage is intended to mean, if we are not to read it literally.

The problem is that we are trying to use the permission granted for the broadcast of Mass via the airwaves to justify using electronic recordings (including computer generated) during the Mass. The documents are clear that this should not happen. Whatever one does in the privacy of their home is different from what is done during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (a public act of worship).

 

[Digitonomy]

The problem is that we are trying to use the permission granted for the broadcast of Mass via the airwaves to justify using electronic recordings (including computer generated) during the Mass.

I’m not trying to do this. I’m agreeing with hosea that at face value, the document states that radio is not to be used as part of the mass.

benedictgal:

Whatever one does in the privacy of their home is different from what is done during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (a public act of worship).

I don’t see that distinction in paragraph 71 of De Musica Sacra.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m not trying to do this. I’m agreeing with hosea that at face value, the document states that radio is not to be used as part of the mass.I don’t see that distinction in paragraph 71 of De Musica Sacra.

Musicam Sacram treats what we are supposed to do during the liturgical worship of the Church. It does not make any mention of what happens in the privacy of one’s home. If you want to listen to a Chant CD while you are praying the Rosary or a chaplet, that is your business. What the Church addresses in these documents is what is done in the public liturgical act.

 

[hosea]

Again, you are grasping at straws here. What is being transmitted, in your case, is a live broadcast. In fact, the Church has an entirely separate document about the broadcast of Masses. Here is what the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy notes:

Here is what the USCCB has in reponse to this:

Thus, even this does not quite support the argument you are trying to make.

Furthermore, what you quoted is pretty much killing your own argument. As it specifically states that

Thus, what you are doing, even if it is teeny-tiny, is not allowed. Incidentally, the Bishop’s appeal is not a homily. It does not focus on the Gospel; it is an appeal for money.

You ask to please allow you to do what you are doing. However, one would be hard-pressed to if, even after documentation showing you the contrary, you continue to do something that goes against, as I read it, what the Church requires.

dow.org/documents/LITURGICALMUSICTODAY.pdf

I still do not understand your determination at discouraging me. The document from the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops clearly allows the use of tracks to support liturgical musical accompaniment (see paragraph 62 in the link above). Are you saying that the USCCB is defying the Holy See?

peace

 

[benedictgal]

dow.org/documents/LITURGICALMUSICTODAY.pdf

I still do not understand your determination at discouraging me. The document from the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops clearly allows the use of tracks to support liturgical musical accompaniment (see paragraph 62 in the link above). Are you saying that the USCCB is defying the Holy See?

peace

Music in Catholic Worship is not even an authoritative document. Nor is what you quoted. It is a suggestion, but, since it does not carry the recogitio from the Holy See, it is not legally binding. In fact, it was written by three bishops and that was it. The statements of a lower-ranking body do not overrule what the supreme lawmaking body has already determined.

Since Musicam Sacram made it very clear that this was not allowed, a lesser document that does not carry the recognitio of the Holy See cannot override it.

The document that you are citing really provides no justification. It is an opinion rather than a binding document. Furthermore, it does not even carry any promulgation from the Holy See, not to mention the fact that it is simply a statement, one that has since been replaced. However, even Sing to the Lord is not any better because it failed to get the necessary vote of the Latin Rite bishops in order for it to be submitted to the Holy See for the necessary recogitio.

With all due respect, why are you reluctant to follow what the authoritative documents of the Holy See mandate? The Church specifically states that the music must be actually played, meaning I have to literally have my hands on the keyboard of the organ or piano, or (as much as I do not like it) have my fingers plucking the strings. It is not a matter of my calling up track 8 and inserting it into the mix.

 

[mhazell]

Are you saying that the USCCB is defying the Holy See?

Looking at some of the stuff that goes on in your nation, put it like this: it wouldn’t surprise if some members of the USCCB were defying the Holy See, or at the very least purposefully ignoring its key documents. So they’re either defiant or ignorant–in either case, though, it doesn’t really matter, since Musicam Sacram forbids the use of recorded music, and thus (like it or not) forbids what you are doing with liturgical music.

I’m sorry, but there it is. You can quote these USCCB documents all you like; the fact remains that they do not overrule the Holy See, and if the USCCB says something different than what the CDWDS has said, it is the USCCB that is at fault.

I still do not understand your determination at discouraging me.

The liturgy is no-one’s private property; this is why things like the GIRM exist, and why we (should) implement the Church’s universal guidelines and decrees when it comes to the liturgy.

If what you are doing is wrong (which the Holy See has said it is), you should expect to be discouraged from doing it, rather than be indignant at the very suggestion. Isn’t it the responsibility of Catholics to discourage their brothers and sisters from doing wrong? Are we not to submit to the Church in her loving wisdom?

It doesn’t matter whether you think you can justify your use of recorded music at the Mass. It doesn’t matter if you or others think you do a good job. It doesn’t matter what the USCCB “guidelines” are if they diverge from the Holy See’s. If what you’re doing is wrong, then it’s wrong, period, and you should stop.

 

[hosea]

**Luke 6:41-42 **

 

[hosea]

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

Given 5 March, 1967
In selecting the kind of sacred music to be used, whether it be for the choir or for the people, the capacities of those who are to sing the music must be taken into account. No kind of sacred music is prohibited from liturgical actions by the Church as long as it corresponds to the spirit of the liturgical celebration itself and the nature of its individual parts,[7] and does not hinder the active participation of the people.[8]
It is for the Holy See alone to determine the more important general principles which are, as it were, the basis of sacred music, according to the norms handed down, but especially according to the Constitution on the Liturgy.
CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 4, 1963
Direction in this matter, within the limits laid down, also belongs to the competent territorial Episcopal Conferences of various kinds, which have been legitimately constituted, and to the individual bishop.[9]
44. It is desirable that the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, set up a liturgical commission, to be assisted by experts in liturgical science, sacred music, art and pastoral practice. So far as possible the commission should be aided by some kind of Institute for Pastoral Liturgy, consisting of persons who are eminent in these matters, and including laymen as circumstances suggest. Under the direction of the above-mentioned territorial ecclesiastical authority the commission is to regulate pastoral-liturgical action throughout the territory, and to promote studies and necessary experiments whenever there is question of adaptations to be proposed to the Apostolic See.
45. For the same reason every diocese is to have a commission on the sacred liturgy under the direction of the bishop, for promoting the liturgical apostolate.

Is 44 and 45 referring to the United States Council of Catholic Bishops?
Here is their mission statement.
Mission
The mission of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (see CIC, c. 447) is to support the ministry of bishops with an emphasis on evangelization, by which the bishops exercise in a communal and collegial manner certain pastoral functions entrusted to them by the Lord Jesus of sanctifying, teaching, and governing (see Lumen gentium, no. 21).

This mission calls the Conference to

• Act collaboratively and consistently on vital issues confronting the Church and society (see Christus Dominus, no. 38.1)
• Foster communion with the Church in other nations, within the Church universal, under the leadership of its supreme pastor, the Roman Pontiff
• Offer appropriate assistance to each bishop in fulfilling his particular ministry in the local Church

(Cf. Apostolos suos, 1998.)

Are we saying that this orginazation is bogus and in defyiance of the Holy See? Should they be disolved for such treason as allowing some indignant lowly musician like me to enhance the liturgy with cheesy pre-recorded soundtracks simply because he read it in one of their documents?
By the way, no one has ever said our music was cheesy. It is extremely well-recieved by the parish and the Clergy. It IS in the spirit of the Liturgical celebration and does not in any way hinder the full, active participation of the assembly. Perhaps that is why paragraph 62 was added by the USCCB. But, apparently, those who condemn me do not recognize the group. At least not paragraph 62.

I wish I weren’t so drawn to this forum but my heart longs to continue in my ministry and using my gifts to enhance His Liturgies.

Peace,
Terry

 

[mhazell]

In selecting the kind of sacred music to be used, whether it be for the choir or for the people, the capacities of those who are to sing the music must be taken into account. No kind of sacred music is prohibited from liturgical actions by the Church as long as it corresponds to the spirit of the liturgical celebration itself and the nature of its individual parts,[7] and does not hinder the active participation of the people.[8]

What you seemingly fail to appreciate is that the Holy See has decided that recorded music is not in keeping with the “spirit of the liturgy”. This is made clear in other documents from the Pope and Holy See which both ante- and post-date the Second Vatican Council.

The documents of Vatican II are not to be read in a vacuum, as if they were harbingers of sweeping change, obliterating everything that came before them. They need to be read with a sense of continuity–i.e. in light of the tradition of the Church, with reference to everything before them.

Direction in this matter, within the limits laid down, also belongs to the competent territorial Episcopal Conferences of various kinds, which have been legitimately constituted, and to the individual bishop.[9]

Your emphasis is void, because you fail to pay any attention to the the sentence *directly before *the one you quote (!):

“It is for the Holy See alone to determine the more important general principles** *cannot *overrule the Holy See on its explanations as to what these principles are and entail] **which are, as it were, the basis of sacred music, according to the norms handed down Musicae Sacrae (Pius XII), Tra le Sollicetudini (St. Pius X), etc.], but especially according to the Constitution on the Liturgy.” (Mus. Sac. 12, emphasis and comments mine)

You also seem to ignore part of what you yourself quoted–bishops work “within the limits laid down”.

By the way, no one has ever said our music was cheesy. It is extremely well-recieved by the parish and the Clergy. It IS in the spirit of the Liturgical celebration and does not in any way hinder the full, active participation of the assembly.

In your opinion it is in the “spirit” of the liturgy. Other Church documents say otherwise. (You are, however, quite emotionally invested in it, so I might suggest that in the “spirit” of objectivity, you ought to perhaps take a metaphorical step back and examine things more carefully.) And whether your recorded music is “cheesy” or not is not the issue here.

What is the issue is this: you appear to be labouring under the impression that something can be in the “spirit of Vatican II” or the “spirit of the liturgy” whilst simultaneously being in defiance of the Holy See’s instructions on the liturgy. Can’t you see the problem here?

*It is not logically possible for something to be in the “spirit of the liturgy” whilst that selfsame something goes against what the Church has declared that same “spirit” to be! *

The Church has said that recorded music is forbidden at the Mass, and is not to used in the liturgy. I’m sorry, but that is that. There is no getting around this, no matter how much you try and make the texts say what you want them to say. Like it or not, what you are doing is wrong–this is not my opinion, this is what the relevant Church documents say! I implore you as a fellow Catholic–please, humbly submit to what Holy Mother Church has asked of the faithful.

 

[benedictgal]

The previous poster raises some very valid points. The lesser authority does not overrule what the Supreme authority has dicated.

I repeat what I said early on in this thread. In 2003, I attended the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions conference. I attended the breakout session on sacred music. One of the participants wanted to know if she could use recorded music, namely the recording of an organ, for the Mass because sometimes the instrument in her parish kept conking out.

The secretary for the USCCB’s Committee on Liturgy (now Divine Worship) said that this was not allowed. Someone had to be physically playing the instrument.

originally posted by hosea
By the way, no one has ever said our music was cheesy. It is extremely well-recieved by the parish and the Clergy. It IS in the spirit of the Liturgical celebration and does not in any way hinder the full, active participation of the assembly.

One thing is to be in the spirit and the other is to actually follow what the Liturgy requires. Many people who have made that argument seem to be ardent subscribers to the “spirit” of Vatican II rather than what the legitimate documents of that same council actually say.

Something that we have to consider is this: are we doing what we are doing for our own benefit or is it for something else? We worship in Spirit and in Truth; however, this worship also involves in a most integral way, following the Truth of the Church’s Liturgical Worship as mandated by her documents. No amount of beautifully produced electronic music can justify going against the norms of the Church. That is where we let our pride get the better of us because we insist on having things our own way as opposed to what the Church requires.

Even if we genuinely mean well, if we are not doing what the Church asks us to do, then we need to humbly rethink and reconsider our actions and bring ourselves into conformity with the norms of the Church. Unfortunately, a lot of liturgical abuses crop up because we may have a serious misunderstanding of the legitimate documents of the Church and seem to think that there is carte blanche approach to doing just about anything. However, this should not be the case, especially since the authoritative documents of the Holy See repeatedly note that recorded music is not allowed for use in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Digitonomy]

It is not logically possible for something to be in the “spirit of the liturgy” whilst that selfsame something goes against what the Church has declared that same “spirit” to be!

I have to take issue with this. Since the Church can, and has, changed its recognition of what the proper spirit of the liturgy may be, it is certainly possible for something (e.g. the use of organ) to be in the spirit of the liturgy before the Church actually grants licity to it. I make no claim that that is true regarding our topic here.

 

[benedictgal]

I have to take issue with this. Since the Church can, and has, changed its recognition of what the proper spirit of the liturgy may be, it is certainly possible for something (e.g. the use of organ) to be in the spirit of the liturgy before the Church actually grants licity to it. I make no claim that that is true regarding our topic here.

However, the Church clearly states that musical recordings are not allowed. Even the former secretary for the USCCB Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship made it a point to state that this was not allowed.

The fact remains that we have taken the Spirit of Vatican II as the truth while completely ignoring whast the authoritative documents of the Holy See say about the subject. Instruments that are best suited for a rock concert (electric guitars, drums, bass guitars, synthesizers) have no place in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Furthermore, if I am going to a concert, I am paying money to hear Simon Le Bon and Duran Duran sing and play their musical instruments live and in person. Heck, that is why the Monkees had to make a quick beeline to learn how to play (at least two of them had to do it) because they were going to be doing this live.

The same holds true with the Mass, even more so because this is of greater importance than a secular concert. We are not there to listen to an electronic composition. We are there to worship and adore God and to witness the Paschal Mystery as it once again unfolds before our eyes. The music must be live. There must be an actual living, breathing human being (or a group of living, breathing, human beings) playing the musical instrument and singing.

 

[Digitonomy]

However, the Church clearly states that musical recordings are not allowed. Even the former secretary for the USCCB Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship made it a point to state that this was not allowed.

Yes, I didn’t say otherwise.

benedictgal:

The fact remains that we have taken the Spirit of Vatican II as the truth while completely ignoring whast the authoritative documents of the Holy See say about the subject.

I don’t know who “we” is; my post you quoted didn’t discuss Vatican II or any other specific document, it merely made the general point that the letter of the law doesn’t ipso facto define the spirit of the liturgy, it merely defines what the law is which we are obligated to follow.

benedictgal:

The same holds true with the Mass, even more so because this is of greater importance than a secular concert. We are not there to listen to an electronic composition.

Nor are we there to listen to a choir and organ. This argument does not seem to address the point of contention between you and hosea.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, I didn’t say otherwise.I don’t know who “we” is; my post you quoted didn’t discuss Vatican II or any other specific document, it merely made the general point that the letter of the law doesn’t ipso facto define the spirit of the liturgy, it merely defines what the law is which we are obligated to follow.Nor are we there to listen to a choir and organ. This argument does not seem to address the point of contention between you and hosea.

Actually, it does. Even though there are some who may not think it does, the dots pretty much connect. Musicam Sacram does not allow for electronic recordings to be used. Some have tried to justify this by quoting documents that allow for TV and radio broadcasts, but, these are like comparing lemons to watermelons.

No, we do not go to Mass to just listen to the organ and the choir; however, we don’t go to Mass to watch a video screen propped up on the altar of a priest celebrating Mass. The priest needs to be physically present. We do not put a tape recorder on top of the ambo and hear the readings proclaimed from the device. A person, a live human being, has to physically proclaim them. The same holds true with the music. I need to put my hands to the keyboard of the organ/piano or pluck the guitar. I can’t just press a button on the computer and let the machine belt out pre-recorded track 8; nor can I do the same for the vocals. I and the rest of the choir have to physically sing.

 

[hosea]

No, we do not go to Mass to just listen to the organ and the choir; however, we don’t go to Mass to watch a video screen propped up on the altar of a priest celebrating Mass. The priest needs to be physically present. We do not put a tape recorder on top of the ambo and hear the readings proclaimed from the device. A person, a live human being, has to physically proclaim them. The same holds true with the music. I need to put my hands to the keyboard of the organ/piano or pluck the guitar. I can’t just press a button on the computer and let the machine belt out pre-recorded track 8; nor can I do the same for the vocals. I and the rest of the choir have to physically sing.

And yet there it is; a movie screen propped up right smack dab in front of the Altar with not just a priest but Bishop Olmsted himself speaking from a DVD on the readings of the day in the exact spot where the homily takes place.
Did you know that there are m.i.d.i. keyboards that just by touching a key will trigger pre-recorded musical passages of guitar strumming, drums, all kinds of pre-recorded stuff? Technology has taken music to new and excitingly beautiful possibilities. I believe the USCCB in paragraph 62 simply is keeping pace with the evolution of electronic music. And the Bishops are ordained by The Pope himself and are his subordinates in the Church. To say that they are renigades just because you personally think we who use today’s electronic musical wonders are trying to imitate Duran Duran (pa-lease!) or the Monkees is just plain ludricrous.