Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Shawn!
You beat Jeffrey to the punch!!
Sorry to be a pessimist, but don't anyone hold their breath for something good, cause it'll probably be more of the same of what we've suffered through for years.
This is an awful document, across the board. It is quite possibly the complete OPPOSITE of the last canonized pope's great writing on the same subject:
http://www.unavoce.org/
intersoll...licitudines.htm
The congregation leads in song following the organ, with the choir accompanying them? Huh?
Cassocks and surplices for singers are "not recommended"? A schola indeed fulfills a clerical role, as do the altar boys, at Mass.
Sancte Pio X, ora pro nobis. Sancta Cecilia, ora pro nobis. Sancte Gregori, ora pro nobis.
Interesting:
75. Each worshiping community in the United States, including all age groups and all ethnic groups, should, at a minimum, learn Kyrie XVI, Sanctus XVIII, and Agnus Dei XVIII, all of which are typically included in congregational worship aids. More difficult chants, such as Gloria VIII and settings of the Credo and Pater Noster, might be learned after the easier chants have been mastered.
Thanks for the link.
I usually let Jeffrey and Michael handle most all the music items on the NLM, but this one came across my desk and seemed desireable to post right away.
Expect to see commentary on the main site of course.
Is what Zadok the Roman pointed out something new regarding the chanting of the ordinary? If so, that would seem a very positive step. Particularly with the younger priests who are far more amenable to tradition. Tom
What is this thing which the English speaking world calls the "Gospel Acclamation". It doesn't exist in the liturgical books and no Vatican document speaks about it.
However, what DOES exist is
1. the acclamations at the Gospel, which are more important to sing, according to Musicam Sacram, than
2. the acclamation before the Gospel (previously called the "Alleluia" or "Tract").
Ken, in what way is a schola fulfilling a "clerical" role?
Color me unimpressed. Then again, I didn't see anything in there I didn't already know. I suppose for someone who has NO knowledge of relevant liturgical legislation, this would be an enormous help. So, in further consideration, maybe it doesn't help us knowledgeable musicians very much but still maybe we should led it our support for the sake of those who have no knowledge of liturgical legislation?
It must be terribly lonely at times being a bishop. People often say the life of a priest can be lonely; you don't hear too many people say how lonely a bishop's life must be.
Europe: The "Gospel Acclamation" is the vague term for the Alleluia or its replacement (during Lent). I suppose it could be simply called the "Alleluia or Tract".
Wow, I surely missed the beat on this one. Excited to read it...
I'm about half way through this document...My main question, was this document really necessary? Most of it has already been stated in the GIRM or elsewhere, or, the content is completely not useful. They could of left out the whole diverse culture and language section. Great, more balkanization and put down of "Western European" culture. I guess it is more important to appeasing all the secular cultures rather than have a coherent CATHOLIC culture.
The section on Chant seems to give with one hand and takes away with the other. There is no definite guidence given on instruments...particularly electric guitars, bongo and electric drums. Gathering from the section on "The Composer and Music of Our Day," it sounds like musical forms are okay...even profane ones, because "No matter what the genre of music, liturgical beauty emanates directly from that mystery and is passed through the talents of composers to emerge in the music of the assembled."
There is more, but, I'm still reading this thing.
oh and the term "pastoral musician" is just ridiculous.
"At times, the choir performs its ministry by singing alone."
Now, there's a vote of confidence for choral excellence! And we wonder why parishes have been gutted of people with skill...
I'm going to have to read this in several sittings....
"Care should be taken, however, to choose appropriate hymns in other languages so as to avoid an expression that could be misconstrued as tokenism."
This is just too much...
And why can't we finnaly be rid of references to "liturgy committees" and the like. They have no proper place and rarely accomplish anything worth while. More often than not they simply promote mediocrity. The priest is responsible for the music in consultation with his music director.
Look at this: #157: "The proper or seasonal Responsorial Psalm from the Lectionary for Mass, with thecongregation singing the response, is to be preferred to the gradual from the Graduale Romanum." Citation to GIRM: "The Responsorial Psalm should correspond to each reading and should, as a rule, be taken from the
Lectionary”
But the GIRM means that IF you are going to sing a Responsorial Psalm, it should be from the lectionary, not that the rule should favor RPsalm over the Graduale.
Right?
Is this document, as was rumored some weeks ago, merely "advisory" and not "particular law"? I can find indication neither on the USCCB website nor in the document itself.
It surely will have some kind of normative force in the US, but it is also completely legitimate to ignore it and follow Liturgiam Authenticam, Musica Sacra, and similar Vatican documents, correct?
I sincerely think that this document beats to death the role of the community. And the "Judging the Qualities of Music for Liturgy" section makes no logical sense. It basically sounds like if the congregation likes the music and as long as the words are approved then it's okeedoke to do what ever floats your boat.
Can some explain to me where the last part of paragraph 188 which is on the Agnus Dei comes from? "When the Agnus Dei is repeated as a litany, Christological invocations with other texts may be used....in this case the first and final invocations will be Agnus Dei (Lamb of God)." I didn't think this was a valid option, nor is in the GIRM.
Be glad your bishops have all but forbidden the playing of pre-recorded music at Mass!
I thought that practice with the Agnus Dei was forbidden! I can't remember where I read that, however.
Folks, this is a marked improvement over past documents from the US Bishops - when was the last time any of us read "Holy Mother Church" or "her" used in reference to the Church from the USCCB?? - as well as the progress made on the sections concerning the use of Latin, the role of chant, etc. It isn't perfect, but what is? - and just what, dare I ask, would actually placate the majority of commenters on this blog?
It's a morass. What a disappointment.
Paragraph 188 would most likely disqualify this document from a recognitio, and the Bishops still need to submit a document with a Recognitio to conform with Liturgiam Authenticam.
Oh, and will Liturgical Press still be putting MCW in their books of liturgical documents? They didn't take EACW out when Built of Living Stones came out, did they? MCW will still be The Document to influential folks that prefer it.
So, how was the ball moved forward, again? MCW was not explicitly abrogated, this document does not conform to Liturgiam Authenticam's requirement of a recognitio, and everyone will continue to cite the documents they like, so they can do what they want.
Emilio, of course you can "dare ask." We're not exactly fire-breathing monsters.
just what, dare I ask, would actually placate the majority of commenters on this blog?
For me, in a word, "decisiveness." This document is profoundly equivocal, deeply conflicted, and therefore diminishes my confidence in the USCCB as a group.
For example, I don't think this document defines "sacred music" in any consistent or clear way. Notice that the first section attempts to theologize singing as praise. Fine, but where does "sacred" come in? It doesn't. There is no attempt anywhere in this document to explain what the Church means by "sacred." The first usage is in this sentence:
Authentic sacred music supports the Church’s prayer by enriching its
elements.
How helpful.
Jeff Pinyan -- From Saint Pius the X:
14. Finally, only men of known piety and probity of life are to be admitted to form part of the choir of a church, and these men should by their modest and devout bearing during the liturgical functions show that they are worthy of the holy office they exercise. It will also be fitting that singers while singing in church wear the ecclesiastical habit and surplice, and that they be hidden behind gratings when the choir is excessively open to the public gaze.
He is very clear on the clerical role chanters have. This is why the area clerics sing is called the choir, no?
The American bishops disagree, by recommending the cassock and surplice not be used -- but the alb be worn. Isn't the alb worn over a cassock?
The document is a mess. What little on Gregorian chant in there has an escape clause that prefaces it.
I didn't think this was a valid option, nor is in the GIRM.
Fr. McNamara took up this question. Here is his response:
The norms regarding the singing on the Agnus Dei are found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 83: "…The supplication Agnus Dei, is, as a rule, sung by the choir or cantor with the congregation responding; or it is, at least, recited aloud. This invocation accompanies the fraction and, for this reason, may be repeated as many times as necessary until the rite has reached its conclusion, the last time ending with the words 'dona nobis pacem' (grant us peace)."
Therefore, as a rule, the invocations may be repeated if the rite of fraction is prolonged. But there is no mention of inserting new invocations or of prolonging the Agnus Dei as a Communion song. Thus the invocation "Grant us peace" should be said at the end of the fraction and no extra invocations introduced.
That's the killer for me. There is no attempt to use the chant as a touchstone for defining sacred music. What this document fails to do is to attempt a formal definition of sacred music. In chant, it has a paradigm easily at hand. It fails to use it. No wonder the result is so equivocal.
From a canonical standpoint, these are "guidelines" and so have little canonical heft. As Joe Marier notes above, this does not fulfill the requirements of Liturgicam authenticam - from what I understand, the Committee, recognizing that there was little chance of this document getting the require recognitio to carry any legal force, altered the format and has published it as guidelines.
That's not to say it can simply be ignored, but it in no way trumps or derogates from promulgated law or legitimate custom.
Frankly, I would treat it as any other "suggestion" - utilize it where the suggestion is good, nod and smile where the suggestion is bad.
“Kyrie XVI, Sanctus XVIII, and Agnus Dei XVIII,”
Zadock - where does one find these? What to the roman numerals mean?
- - -
“I suppose for someone who has NO knowledge of relevant liturgical legislation, this would be an enormous help.”
Gavin – believe me, the document is an enormous help! The Church includes liturgical illiterates like me.
- - -
“My main question, was this document really necessary? Most of it has already been stated in the GIRM or elsewhere, or, the content is completely not useful.”
CPT Tom – What is the GIRM? Where else can one find this information? Most of what is in the document is new to me. And isn’t our Catholic culture diverse? Doesn’t the word “catholic” mean universal – and if so, is “diverse” not a means of describing what is catholic?
What’s a better, less ridiculous term for “pastoral musician?”
- - -
“It’s a morass. What a disappointment.”
Wow, Pes! Simply, “Wow!”
How might the Bishops improve on the document? How might Jesus’ shepherds meet your standards?
- - -
From the comments I’ve read thus far, it seems that folks in the know liturgically are quite a particular bunch. Are the above comments representative of folks who long for a return to the Latin Mass?
jrg,
No, it's an indication of folks who what clear and decisive instruction. Which to date has not existed for the last 40 years. If it means a return to the Latin mass...so be it. This document and others like it add to the tower of Babel the liturgy has become.
Jrg,
The GIRM=General Instruction for the Roman Missal. This is the foundational instructions on how the mass is to occur.
Catholic does not equal "Diverse" it means universal as in universally applied. Some diversity is good as long as it augments the whole, but things have just become chaotic with out any attention paid to that principle.
What is unclear in the document? Seems pretty straight-forward to me.
JRG,
Yeah, we're a pretty quarrelsome bunch at times. Don't let that turn you away, though: our sincerity shines like a beacon!
To answer your question, though, what I want is for the Bishops to accomplish the task set forth in "Liturgiam Authenticam", which is a document on music, with the force of particular law, that conforms to the Roman liturgical/conciliar documents (Liturgiam Authenticam, Musica Sacra, Sacrosanctum Concilium). This document does not accomplish this, and as I said before, does not even say that it replaces MCW (which I would bet will still be published as a liturgical document by Liturgical Press, as EACW still is).
Thanks, Tom. Is Jesus in the Eucharist not the Whole?
JRG,
What's unclear is why a document that doesn't meet the Holy See's requirements should be considered as guidelines in the first place, when it will be superceded by a later document that will meet the Holy See's requirements.
By the way - where can one get a copy of the GIRM?
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/
cur...sromanien.shtml
There you go.
Thanks, Joe. How soon will the Holy See come out with their document - and in the interim does not the Bishop's current doc at least bring folks like me up to speed and help us adjust what we're doing wrong?
Thanks for the link, Joe!
JRG,
You're quite welcome. Keep in mind, we're getting into the weeds here. There are quite a few liturgical documents, and GIRM is one of the absolutely definitive ones.
What needs to happen is that the U.S. Bishops come up with a document that will pass muster with the Holy See, and from what I understand, they are required to do so (the document would originate from the Bishops' Committe on Divine Worship, not the Holy See itself). When that will happen, I don't know. But it's supposed to happen, and it hasn't.
I speak as someone who, happily, makes no liturgical decisions whatsoever. Certainly you should read this document; from what I understand, it's an improvement over Music in Catholic Worship, and it has the advantage of being promulgated by the Bishops (MCW was not). You should also read Musica Sacra (google it), which has the greater force of liturgical law.
At a minimum, what I'm saying is that there are important questions that need to be answered about liturgical music in the US, and how it needs to change in the light of documents like Musica Sacra, Ecclesia de Eucharista, Liturgiam Authenticam, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and so on, and those questions will not be answered by guidelines that are not okayed by the Holy See.
So, we wait.
Yes, we wait, but there's plenty to happily instruct us as we wait, as we know.
And jrg, I greatly esteem obedient, faithful, Christ-like Roman Catholic bishops. That does not mean that the documents issued by the bishops' committees are above criticism.
How might Jesus’ shepherds meet your standards?
My personal standards are irrelevant, but I am free to express them. If my standards are the same as general standards, then you should treat them as the latter and not try to tar them as expressions of personal whim.
jrg,
Not sure what you're trying to say. Perhaps you're missing some words?
jrg
To answer some of your yet unaswered questions:
“Kyrie XVI, Sanctus XVIII, and Agnus Dei XVIII,”
The Graduale Romanum contains the chant settings for Mass. Most of the book covers the propers: the proper of seasons, from the first Sunday of Advent on, the proper of saints, the common of saints, and Masses for the dead. The follows the chant for the Ordinary in what is known as the Kyriale. After the settings of the Asperges me and the Vidi aquam, for the sprinkling of Holy Water before Sunday Mass, follows a series of different settings, 18 in all, and numbered consecutively. Each contains a Kyrie (sometimes two, A & B), a Gloria (one has two), a Sanctus and an Agnus Dei. Mass 16, for green ferial days, and Mass 18, for Advent, Lent and Requiems, have no Gloria, for obvious reasons. Mass 17, for Sundays in Advent and Lent, has 3 Kyries, A, B & C. Then follow 6 settings of the creed, and a series of stand-alone settings of individual parts of the Mass, entitled "cantus ad libitum", also numbered, and generally distinguished from the complete settings by an *. For example, Kyrie 8*, often used for Masses of Our Lady.
Arlene Oost-Zinner did a post on 18 November about why the expression "pastoral musician" is best avoided. It generated an interesting discussion. You may find both the post and the discussion useful, as they cover arguments for and against.
Be nice to Pes. His is one of the best voices in these comboxes. You wouldn't have been shocked if you had read more of what he has said. But if you stick around, you will, and I don't think you'll regret it.
"The congregation leads in song following the organ, with the choir accompanying them? Huh?"
As archaeologism seems to be the order of the day, perhaps they want us to use the sort of mediaeval portatif organ with a bellows that the organist works with his elbow. The congregation can thus follow the organ. I wonder where the choir should walk. On either side?
"Recorded music may be used to accompany the community’s song during a procession outside and, when used carefully, in Masses with children."
Now, there's a strong warning: in liturgy, carefully use those Kids' Mass CDs!
“Kyrie XVI, Sanctus XVIII, and Agnus Dei XVIII,”
This selection of chants seems to be chosen because they are the ones included in "Iubilate Deo," Paul VI's booklet of chants all Catholics should know. It also included for the ordinary Gloria VIII and Credo III.
But for most congregations these three chants are a good place to start. Perhaps on their visits to parishes bishops should check to see if at least these three chants were known by the congregation.
What have other countries done regarding liturgical music? I think the Italian bishops' conference has done some restricting of liturgical music (repertoire of hymns, for example) but don't know anything else. Anybody know anything about other countries?
PS In Ireland, there has never been a single official anything on liturgical music, as far as I can make out. The bishops' advisory committee has produced some music books, and then some "pastoral notes" to go with it. But none of that is surprising since in many dioceses peole still kneel from the Entrance to the first reading at Mass, and some parishes have never had a single note of music at Sunday Masses.
I just finished quickly reading the document, and while I can't contest those who, with greater attention to these matters, are highlighting problems, perhaps this is a, "is the glass half-full or half-empty" sort of situation?
In my quick read, it definitely seems a step forward from where we've been. In parishes, such as mine, where we've introduced some of the chants to -- on the part of some -- bug-eyed astonishment, the document makes clear that's not foreign, but encouraged. It points, oh so tentatively, in the right direction in several places.
The document actually points out that we haven't been doing what Vatican II said to do in many areas, and it actually encourages the use of proper chants and antiphons rather than hymns!
So, make the most of it. Quote it: "for those wondering why we've been...you may be interested in what the bishops just said..."
Meanwhile, the fact that this was rushed through by the outgoing chairman of the relevant committee is very striking. Why not let the new committee coming in continue to work on it? One reason would be fear what the new crowd would do with it.
Think about that--isn't that encouraging?
Finally, yes, we may have to wait for a new document, but this may have the good effect of helping folks move toward the next step, real progress. And, it may help spur Rome on.
(Which gives me an idea: remember how some have complained the bishops aren't going to send this along for Rome's approval? Well, how about we send it anyway, and see what happens?)
We all need to take a deep breath and then remember the "big picture." And what is the big picture? That we have young priests like Father Fox who are re-introducing Catholic tradition, Latin, chant, etc., to their congregations. They are the future. The seeds have been planted. The 1960s crowd is fading and so is their influence. Deo gratias, Alleluia. Tom
Father,
After skimming this, I agree. While there are some stnanks worthy of a do over in this document, it is an improvement.
I'm not sure how "we" could send the document for a recognitio... I mean, I suppose I could print it out and mail it with an explanatory cover letter saying, "Hey, could you review this document for a recognitio, pretty please?"
JRG
You ask marvelious questions...and very important ones.I concurr with above. we are an ornery bunch but deeply in love with the church and her liturgy and deeply committed to both.
This document is pretty much what I feared and is only a grudging nod to tradition with as many escape clauses as possible. (Like the hope if we just sing the simple agnus dei that the rest of the status quo would remain in place.
I would like a document that recognizes the superiority of chant and polyphony, the importance of good classical music education, the affirmation of the organ as central, and the revocation of any idea that all genres are equal. I would like the bishops to take to task the gia/ocp/npm, monolith and to admit that most music in average parishes is in need of drastic reform
This document speaks on both sides of its mouth rendering it useless.
It is in effect an affirmation of the status quo.
JRG,
I meant no sarcasm in my comment, so I am glad that the document helped out a "liturgical illiterate" such as yourself. That, I think, is the real value of this document. It'll help out those who have never looked once at the legislation that's out there, as you've demonstrated.
Gavin:
A review could have been written and published in a nice pamphlet from LTP.
This was supposed to be legislation.
Have cursorily reviewed the document, my initial impressions are:
1. While there was an effort to weave in a deeper “concept” to undergird the particular guidelines, the guidelines themselves betray a patchwork quality. I appreciate the emphasis on some things that have not been as squarely addressed before (like acoustics (FINALLY, a document that underscores acoustics - is it the first such document in that regard?) and compensation, to just cite 2 examples). But the document still has things in it that betray a failure to reconcile with ROman legislation, and to that extent must be reckoned incomplete and confusing.
2. In one way the document has made for somewhat greater clarity overall: it renders MCW and LMT moot, because of the clearly stated intention to supercede prior conference statements on music. This document is advisory rather than particular law, but displaces whatever was legislative in nature in the superceded documents. To that extent, this now means that we are no longer faced with a battle between Roman and American legislation, just Roman legislation on the one hand and advisory guidelines on the other. I have a feeling that people may be caught unawares about this result, though it may well explain why the bishops ended up OKing it.
Liam
I agree. I took a major sigh of relief when I learned that this document wouldnt have the force of particular law. With Cardinal Mahoney in charge, it couldnt possibly be other than what it turned out to be.
I like the idea that you pointed out that now we have no conflicting legislation between rome and america.This can only be a good thing.
Kathy, what were you expecting? A round of Indexes and book burnings? What more could the document say than the Church has already said?
Interesting perspective Liam. I do see the big picture but somehow it is more abstract in my mind than the details of the text within this document.
Taking a deep breath...
JRG... thank you for sticking with this crowd... a good group here with many years of experience. A good description of this document is to say that it is something of a bridge between where we are now and where we should be eventually. It makes it clear what the preferences should be, and goes as far as to say that we all should know this and that in latin and that the actual Propers are to be preferred to the substitute hymns used exclusively in the U.S. It seems as though the authors of this document are aware that there is likely to be more coming from Rome with actual force of Law, and as such they shy away from making bold mandates or any definitive statements. This feature, which arises from the compromise which gave birth to the document itself, makes it seem uneasy and indecisive, full of the "escape clauses" mentioned above.
Overall, this final version is a grand improvement over the previous draft. There are certainly problems...it suggests what "should be done" but fails to make the necessary leap of defining what "should NOT be done" and as such makes it possible for the deplorable staus quo to remain largely intact. This, while disappointing, should not be too great a problem, as it is likely that there will be actual LAW being laid down from Rome to accomplish that task in not too long.
For me, in a word, "decisiveness." This document is profoundly equivocal, deeply conflicted...
That sums it up.
Schizophrenic might be the one-word summary.
...and in "news," the doc now permits recorded music for KiddieMass.
I doubt that Rome will nod in approval.
There is a very serious problem with its claim that the Responsorial Psalm (which we sing every sunday) is to be preferred to the Gradual. This is a direct toppling of the Roman Rite ideal for the utility substitute and it finds little or no support in the documented cited in defense of this claim. I don't see how an outright attempt to untie the Rite from its intrinsic musical heritage, one so explicit, could have made it in here. Or maybe I shouldn't be so taken aback.
Jeffery,
Perhaps you should take a look at the GIRM which establishes very clearly the same preference (especially in the Latin version). On this matter, the bishops' document doesn't say anything other than what the current Missal presupposes.
Pardon the typo on your name, Jeffrey. No offense was intended.
Kenjiro Shoda wrote:
"Sorry to be a pessimist, but don't anyone hold their breath for something good, cause it'll probably be more of the same of what we've suffered through for years."
Ken wrote:
"Gravatar This is an awful document, across the board. It is quite possibly the complete OPPOSITE of the last canonized pope's great writing on the same subject:
The congregation leads in song following the organ, with the choir accompanying them? Huh?
Cassocks and surplices for singers are "not recommended"? A schola indeed fulfills a clerical role, as do the altar boys, at Mass."
Yes, I reiterate, "Sancte Pio X, ora pro nobis. Sancta Cecilia, ora pro nobis. Sancte Gregori, ora pro nobis."
I would also like to add SAINT PIUS V!! Thank you, Almighty God, for communicating to this saint and Pope such a true and holy Mass.
This document is nothing more than a bunch of insipid hacks who really are intent on destroying the Church in the this country. References to "pride of place" for the organ, chant and blah blah whatever else was purely patronizing tokenism on their part, a two-faced move after warning against using some ethnic song to avoid tokenism. LOL
This document just fans the lit fuse on the destruction of the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo can be saved, but not at the rate they are going and the way the are doing it.
Anon (why are you anon?), can you cite the passage in the GIRM that depreciates the Graduale in favor of the lectionary text? I just read every relevant passage, as a check on my claim, but I find nothing that does this. Every passage says either RespPsalm or Gradual.
GIRM 61
"The Responsorial Psalm
After the first reading comes the responsorial psalm....
The responsorial Psalm ...should, as a rule, be taken from the Lectionary.
...
The following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary: either the responsorial gradual from the Graduale Romanum, or the responsorial psalm or the Alleluia psalm from the Graduale Simplex, ..."
Ergo, the responsorial psalm is the preferred chant.
Jeffrey,
I believe "from Europe" just cited what I would have. I might just make more explicit the "ergo": "in place of the psalm assigned" clearly means that the responsorial psalm regularly holds that place. The graduale, while allowed, is clearly a replacement for the normal/preferred psalm. Surely you can see this as the simple objective reading of the text?
As for why anonymous, I'd prefer not to be recognized. That's all.
Dear Matt,
Fortunately, I've seen Masses where the choir is on either side of the sanctuary, facing in, choir style, and the director does not detract from the action on the altar (Eastward-facing, of course.)
It's a relief and a joy when this can be found.
Adveniat Regnum Tuum!
The frustrated comments above seem to come from people who expected too much from this document. Of course it doesn't say everything we'd like: most especially, while it often indicates the positive ideal, it rarely is explicit about what NOT to do.
However, compared to the documents it replaces, this document is a very helpful step. For instance, it acknowledges that introducing Latin might be difficult, but that any efforts made in that direction are to be encouraged. That will be a very useful statement to point to when I'm trying to introduce more Latin in a parish. The same is true of the document's words in favor of the Proper Entrance and Communion antiphons. There is a very nice paragraph in praise of Gregorian chant, and the explicit directive that seminarians be taught to execute it. The paragraph on acoustics is particularly helpful and to the point, as are the words about the dignity of the pipe organ.
The overall language also gives evidence of a shift in thought. For instance, the title itself speaks of "divine worship": when was the last time such a "vertical" term was used? The section on the "pastoral judgment" begins: "Does a musical composition promote the sanctification of the members of the liturgical assembly by drawing them closer to the holy mysteries being celebrated?" This is a new sort of language, it seems to me: who talks about sanctification nowadays?
All in all, if you were hoping that the bishops would issue clear condemnations that would cause the abuses and mediocrity you see around you to cease, then you will be disappointed. But if you hoped, like me, that they would indicate a direction more in line with Rome's desires, and thus provide encouragement to the ideals of the new liturgical movement and the efforts of a new generation of clergy to reconnect with tradition, then I think this document does that.
Michael
Let it be remembered that the focusing on how liturgy contributes to the sanctification of the faithful has been for years (since at least the mid-90s on the internet) a theme of Todd Flowerday.
Gavin,
I was expecting the bishops to teach.
Umm, Anon. what that means is that IF you are going to sing the Responsorial Psalm, it should be taken from the Lectionary -- not e.g. from some other source (and there are plenty out there.
That's pretty plain from the text.
The GIRM does NOT say that the RP is preferred to the Gradual.
Is it significant that there have been ZERO news stories about this? And that other than this blog, no one seems to care about this document?
Check Google on this point. Nada.
Commonweal has a post.
I could use some backup there, by the way, as the weight of disappointment has left me rather inarticulate.
It's as though a bunch of talks by OCP artists and diocesan liturgists had been collated to emphasize congregational singing at the expense of absolutely everything else.
Jeffrey
I would have been shocked if this made the news, even in squib form.
First, it was issued a half month after the event where it was approved.
Second, the CDW did not issue a press release or summary of important changes/affirmation of prior guidelines. That would be essential for this to get covered in the first place - professional journalists don't covered musical minutiae (it's not minutiae to us in the trenches, but it is for journalists).
Third, there's no dramatic or human interest story here.
Fourth, it was issued on a Friday. Friday is a dead day for the news cycle (as we all learned during the Reagan administration, Thursday is the day you release news you want covered; Friday is the day to release news you want buried or don't care about). And Fridays between Thanksgiving and New Years (like Fridays in August) are worse still.
I wonder if anyone of rank in Rome is even aware of this. Or even the Nuncio in Washington...
Not that my humble blog counts as news, but I picked this up as soon as it was made public. I have a theory about this document that is a bit different from most of what I've seen here. I think this document is intended to be a sort of "bridge" from where we are to where we are headed. My feeling is that the authors of this document know that there is likely much more to come on this issue from Rome, and as such this document would never have received a recognitio in a form that would be approved by a majority of Bishops. The best course was to suggest as preferred the more "conservative" options already available (Entrance and Communion Antiphons, Latin Ordinary Chants), suggest a course that would prepare for what is likely to come (more instruction in Latin, Chant for seminarians and Music Directors, etc...)and leave further legislation as far as what CAN'T be done to Rome. I don't think that this document will really be meaningful for more than a few years after which it will become obsolete and replaced by particular law on this subject. It is a "transitional" document and needs to be read as such.
Liam wrote:
"I wonder if anyone of rank in Rome is even aware of this. Or even the Nuncio in Washington..."
Even if they did, Liam ( like that name--very Irish ;) ), they wouldn't care. Rome never cares about what any of her bishops do. Haven't you noticed??
Matt
That was my intended implication....
at least regarding issues like this (I want to be careful to avoid an overbroad characterization).
Chironomo, I agree with you that the document is "a bridge." Clearly, it's written by two very different people (or camps,) one of which is aware of 1600+ years' tradition, the other of which is deficient in that tradition.
Considering the nature and content of the LAST two USCC docs on the topic, it's clear the motion is in the right direction.
Only another 50 years or so!
Remember that the Committee on Liturgy (chaired then by Bp. Trautman) had the bishops reduce the status of this document so that it would not have to go to Rome for approval.
o{]:¬/
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
