Several days ago I came across a very interesting item in the January 1900 issue of the American Ecclesiastical Review, a very influential priestly journal in this country for many years. I almost started a thread about it, but didn’t get around to it. This is from the journal’s regular question-and-answer section, so the answer represents, I suppose, the editorial judgment of the Review. It think it is quite apropos in discussing the issue raised here and will reward being printed in full (bracketed translations are mine):
THE ORGAN AT MASS.
Qu. Some months ago the Ecclesiastical Review published a statement that the organ may not accompany the celebrant during the singing of the Preface and the Pater Noster. But, as I am informed, the Caeremoniale Episcoporum says that the organ may be played, not only at the Preface, but even during the Consecration, dulci modo; and that this is confirmed by the practice in the churches of Rome. What do you answer?
My organist accompanied me formerly. Since I saw the decree in the Review, I have not allowed the organ accompaniment during the Preface, etc. Please let me know whether or not the law is of strict interpretation and binding?
Resp. The statement in the Review was a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, which answered the question whether or not the organ might be played during the singing of the Preface and the Pater Noster in the Missa cantata. The decree referred the inquirer to the general law laid down in the liturgical books of the Church, namely, “Observandum est Caeremoniale Episcoporum.” “the Ceremonial of Bishops is to be observed.”]
The Caeremoniale Episcoporum nowhere states that the organ may be played at the Preface and the Pater Noster; nor does it expressly forbid it. It simply specifies all the parts of the Mass at which the organ should be played, and also the parts when, as during the Elevation, it might be played. This is the norm for the perfect observance of the liturgical laws; and the Church does not permit these laws to become a dead letter, nor does she sanction their neglect by any expression of approval where a deviation from the norm is brought to her notice. When questioned, therefore, about the lawfulness of a deviation by any individual member of the Church, she ordinarily and practically answers: You have the law; if what you propose were the right thing to do, the law would tell you; for the liturgical rubrics are directive in all necessary details.
It follows then that a decision, such as we have in the present case, refers the inquirer to the terms of the law, which was, of course, made to be observed. The decision does not assume that the inquirer wants the Church to say what she might tolerate if there were good reason. If she said so, except in rare cases, her general legislation would soon give place to a tissue of exceptional applications of the law under the pressure of scrupulous or wrong-headed inquirers. The Church is much more tolerant than the many detailed decrees which constantly issue from the Congregations would make it appear. But if people ask needless questions, they are apt to get strong answers; for they have no right to expect the Church to make little of her laws because some individual finds it inconvenient to follow them under all circumstances. Confessors and spiritual directors have much the same experience with inquiring penitents, and they know how impossible it is to meet every problem of a nervous subject.
Now, it is a general rule in liturgical matters — and it is well to remember it before asking any questions in Rome — that the prescriptions of the ritual books are to be observed as they stand, “non autem rigorose, sed spectata decenti consuetudine.” “not, however, rigorously, but observing decent custom.”] It is true that consuetudo or custom, if contrary to the rubrics, is to be abolished — “sed prudenter;” “but prudently”;] but a custom not contrary to the rubrics, although not wholly or expressly conformable to the same, may be tolerated. In such cases, however, we cannot expect Rome to discredit the general law by paying the individual claiming the right to this toleration the compliment of advertising it by a general decree, which many persons would forthwith construe into an abrogation or change of the standing rubrics.
Thus it is easily explained why the helpful and soft accompaniment of the organ is, in Rome or elsewhere, tolerated, since the Caeremoniale Episcoporum does not forbid, although it does not expressly permit it.
How does that strike you as a traditional view of how Church regulations ought to be observed?
