Pope St. Pius X and women being in the choir

[angell1]

from his 1903 motu proprio

1. With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the altar and to the ministers, which must be always sung in Gregorian Chant, and without accompaniment of the organ, all the rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir of levites, and, therefore, singers in the church, even when they are laymen, are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical choir. Hence the music rendered by them must, at least for the greater part, retain the character of choral music.

By this it is not to be understood that solos are entirely excluded. But solo singing should never predominate to such an extent as to have the greater part of the liturgical chant executed in that manner; the solo phrase should have the character or hint of a melodic projection (spunto), and be strictly bound up with the rest of the choral composition.

1. On the same principle it follows that singers in church have a real liturgical office, and that therefore women, being incapable of exercising such office, cannot be admitted to form part of the choir. Whenever, then, it is desired to employ the acute voices of sopranos and contraltos, these parts must be taken by boys, according to the most ancient usage of the Church.

I have a hard time following his reasoning, i realize that he seems to ideally want the choir to be clerics, however he allows for lay men to join the choir, however lay men don’t exercise clerical liturgical functions by default either, they are simply stand-ins

i know pope pius xii has modified this since, but what does that really mean then? has the function of the choir changed? is it no long a real liturgical office? because women still can’t be clerics.

i have no problems with the popes changing or even adding new disciplines, it’s the explanations they give that baffles me sometimes, and pope pius x here, seems to be using rather strong language, why would it be not ok then and ok later on?

 

[Gorgias]

i realize that he seems to ideally want the choir to be clerics

That’s not what I get from it. He’s not saying that singers possess minor orders, but that they “have a real liturgical office.” There’s an important difference there. At that point in time, the discipline of the Church didn’t include women in this kind of ministry.

lay men don’t exercise clerical liturgical functions by default either, they are simply stand-ins

Hmm. No, on both counts, I’d say. Lay men don’t exercise liturgical functions of clerics – that much is true! – but being in the choir isn’t a liturgical function of clerics. Moreover, the laity aren’t “stand-ins” for clerics. They simply fulfill the roles of the laity (while clerics fulfill the roles of ordained ministers).

i know pope pius xii has modified this since, but what does that really mean then? has the function of the choir changed? is it no long a real liturgical office? because women still can’t be clerics.

No. It simply means that the ministry of the choir is exercised by both lay men and lay women.

[it] baffles me sometimes … why would it be not ok then and ok later on?

Because that’s what a discipline is. It’s a law that the Church makes at the appropriate time and place. It can, therefore, be changed when the situation changes.

 

[angell1]

ok, well then, why would women have been incapable to exercise a liturgical office unless it was something that resembled a clerical role?

 

[Gorgias]

ok, well then, why would women have been incapable to exercise a liturgical office unless it was something that resembled a clerical role?

You’re misunderstanding the context, I think. This has nothing to do with “women clerics” and everything to do with the fact that, at that point in time, women had no roles of leadership in the liturgy. Men who sang weren’t “clerics”; it was just that men were permitted to have roles and women were not.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

That’s for the Latin Church. In the Eastern Catholic Churches men & women sing. And to be totally in keeping with Byzantine practice, men sit on Our Lord’s side and women sit on Our Lady’s side as seen in Great Vespers from SingCon 2019:

UGCC MUSIC

Scroll down to Great Vespers on Saturday night,
get in your favorite chair and watch it for 3 hours.
Seriously, it’s magnificent. My knees were killing me but I was happy at SingCon 2019.

 

[angell1]

his wording makes it sound like that women are inherently unable to have a role, and he does say thqat even the lay men in the choir take the place of the choir of levites, most of what I’ve seen on this interpretations say that he was generally meaning ecclesiastical choir to be clerics.

again, I thinkit’s just the way he expresses this that is throwing me off, it actually sounds almost more like a doctrinal issue, could also be the translation

 

[Tis_Bearself]

First of all, as you and others have noted, this is a discipline, not a doctrine, so the idea of whether the choir has a liturgical office can change.

Second, it was not universally accepted everywhere that the choir was performing a clerical function when Pope Pius X made this pronouncement. Many saw the choir as simply being an expression of the congregation. I think later Popes veered away from the idea of the choir as being clerical in nature.

 

[Gorgias]

his wording makes it sound like that women are inherently unable to have a role

That was the discipline of the day, yes.

he does say thqat even the lay men in the choir take the place of the choir of levites

As baptized Catholics, we’re all “priests in the Kingdom of Heaven”, so there’s nothing ‘off’ in that regard.

I think it’s just the way he expresses this… it actually sounds almost more like a doctrinal issue

What in the mode of his expression makes you think he’s laying down doctrine?

 

[angell1]

that women are incapable of exercising such a function, it sounds llike he thinks that is something in our nature that makes it impossible

 

[angell1]

I’ve also seen a third interpretation, that the choir represents the choir of angels.

I guess certain customes can have multiple meanings? it honestly can be a bit confusing when different popes appeal to different explanations for the disciplines, sometimes it can even seem contradictory

 

[twf]

I think you’re missing the significance of the phrase “the choir of Levites”. In the Church, Levites refer to deacons… so it certainly does sound like St Pius X was attributing a clerical role to the choir with laymen as stand-ins.

This may have been his view. The Eastern Churches, to my knowledge, always saw singing as an office of the entire congregation. I’m pretty sure the early Church did too. This is one of the issues that Vatican II sought to address… the idea that laity were to have no active role in the liturgy unless acting as stand-ins for clerics.

 

[Gorgias]

I think you’re missing the significance of the phrase “the choir of Levites”. In the Church, Levites refer to deacons

Interesting! I’ve never read a Church document that uses that term in that way.

On the other hand, that term is used in 1 Chronicles, and it refers to priestly people acting in the role of musicians for worship. Now… only the Levites were “priestly people” in the Old Covenant, but all of us are priestly people under Jesus’ New Covenant. So, if you want to say that there are “priestly people who act as musicians”, but aren’t the priests of the temple (as the Aaronic priests were!), then “choir of Levites” would make that assertion of “priestly, but not ministers of the temple service”, which would fit Catholic practice!

Anyway, can you point me to a Church document that uses “choir of Levites” to mean a Catholic who has been ordained? I’ve honestly never seen that usage before…

 

[twf]

A great example was heard last night… in the Exsultet sung by the deacon: “…that he, who has been pleased to number me among the Levites…” That line is omitted when a lay cantor sings the hymn rather than the Deacon.

That said, I see your point and perhaps St Pius did have a broader understanding of the title Levite in this context. There certainly is a tradition to associating deacons with the Levites, but as you say all the baptized are a priestly people.

 

[Gorgias]

A great example was heard last night… in the Exsultet sung by the deacon: “…that he, who has been pleased to number me among the Levites…” That line is omitted when a lay cantor sings the hymn rather than the Deacon.

Umm… sure, but that’s not a reference to the “choir of Levites” as referring exclusively to ordained Catholics, no? In fact, if if Pius were referring to lay men as “choir of Levites” in a Catholic-centric clerical sense, wouldn’t it follow that they could sing that line?

 

[pnewton]

This is one of the weirder things I have seen. I am not going to attempt to understand it, but just accept if I lived more than a century ago I might have had more insight.

 

[twf]

You may be right. While the term “Levite” can definitely be associated with the diaconate, perhaps “choir of deacons” has a broader meaning.

 

[Gorgias]

from his 1903 motu proprio

1. With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the altar and to the ministers, which must be always sung in Gregorian Chant, and without accompaniment of the organ, all the rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir of levites, and, therefore, singers in the church, even when they are laymen, are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical choir.

Just for giggles, I went to the Vatican website and found the actual text. There, it has:

1. Praeter melodias celebrantis ad altare et ministrorum, quae cantu gregoriano semper cani debent sine organi sequentia, quae cantus liturgici extant sunt Chori Levitarum, ideoque cantores ecclesiastici, quamvis non clerici, chori ecclesiastici munere funguntur.

It’s not “even when they’re laymen”, it’s quamvis non clerici – “even though not clerics”. So, I’m not sure that we’d say that he “wants the choir to be clerics”; he seems pretty clear that they’re not, and that’s ok.

 

[Katie777]

We are all part of Catholicism… Nuns have been doing Georgian chant for ages in thier Convents.

My dd sings in choir so I’ll ask her about it.

 

[dochawk]

. And to be totally in keeping with Byzantine practice, men sit on Our Lord’s side and women sit on Our Lady’s side

The designation of sides in that manner (which is not unique to the East; it was first explained to me in a Lithuanian RC church when I commented on the hat holders only being on the pews on one side!) is a later development.

St. John Chrysotum imposed the split because there were problems with, err, folks “making out” during liturgy, and he needed them to get their paws off of one another and pay attention! Some accounts I’ve seen include lower clergy, or perhaps minor orders, as part of the problem!

(similarly, liturgists have commented that the deacon’s call of “Wisdom! Be attentive!” was more along the lines of, “Shut up and listen!”)

“Fourth century problems” (the predecessor to, “First world problems?” :crazy_face

 

[Gorgias]

I think you’re missing the significance of the phrase “the choir of Levites”. In the Church, Levites refer to deacons… so it certainly does sound like St Pius X was attributing a clerical role to the choir with laymen as stand-ins.

You know what? I think I might take that back. I found a copy of the “American Ecclesiastical Review” (volume 51), where it makes the claim that the “choir of levites” isn’t deacons but clerics. (Keep in mind that, back then, one entered the clerical state not with the diaconate but with tonsure.)

So, the point of the text really is that he’s calling this a liturgical function, albeit performed by non-clerics.

The Ecclesiastical Review goes further to point out that other queries were made: could women sing in the sanctuary? Could they sing outside the sanctuary in solemn liturgies? The answer was a consistent “no”.