Tra Le Sollecitudini - A Collegiate Review
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    On the Restoration of Sacred Music (Prot. 0)
    Tra Le Sollecitudini
    November 22, 1903

    (entire document can be found here: http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/17/DocumentIndex/360)

    I am proposing that we examine this document here, section by section and see how we have faired over the last century. I believe this is one of the most significant documents on music to ever have been composed. Here is

    Part I

    Among the cares of the pastoral office, not only of this Supreme Chair, which We, though unworthy, occupy through the inscrutable dispositions of Providence, but of every local church, a leading one is without question that of maintaining and promoting the decorum of the House of God in which the august mysteries of religion are celebrated, and where the Christian people assemble to receive the grace of the Sacraments, to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, to adore the most august Sacrament of the Lord's Body and to unite in the common prayer of the Church in the public and solemn liturgical offices. Nothing should have place, therefore, in the temple calculated to disturb or even merely to diminish the piety and devotion of the faithful, nothing that may give reasonable cause for disgust or scandal, nothing, above all, which directly offends the decorum and sanctity of the sacred functions and is thus unworthy of the House of Prayer and of the Majesty of God. We do not touch separately on the abuses in this matter which may arise. Today Our attention is directed to one of the most common of them, one of the most difficult to eradicate, and the existence of which is sometimes to be deplored in places where everything else is deserving of the highest praise-the beauty and sumptuousness of the temple, the splendor and the accurate performance of the ceremonies, the attendance of the clergy, the gravity and piety of the officiating ministers. Such is the abuse affecting sacred chant and music. And indeed, whether it is owing to the very nature of this art, fluctuating and variable as it is in itself, or to the succeeding changes in tastes and habits with the course of time, or to the fatal influence exercised on sacred art by profane and theatrical art, or to the pleasure that music directly produces, and that is not always easily contained within the right limits, or finally to the many prejudices on the matter, so lightly introduced and so tenaciously maintained even among responsible and pious persons, the fact remains that there is a general tendency to deviate from the right rule, prescribed by the end for which art is admitted to the service of public worship and which is set forth very clearly in the ecclesiastical Canons, in the Ordinances of the General and Provincial Councils, in the prescriptions which have at various times emanated from the Sacred Roman Congregations, and from Our Predecessors the Sovereign Pontiffs.

    It is with real satisfaction that We acknowledge the large amount of good that has been effected in this respect during the last decade in this Our fostering city of Rome, and in many churches in Our country, but in a more especial way among some nations in which illustrious men, full of zeal for the worship of God, have, with the approval of the Holy See and under the direction of the Bishops, united in flourishing Societies and restored sacred music to the fullest honor in all their churches and chapels. Still the good work that has been done is very far indeed from being common to all, and when We consult Our own personal experience and take into account the great number of complaints that have reached Us during the short time that has elapsed since it pleased the Lord to elevate Our humility to the supreme summit of the Roman Pontificate, We consider it Our first duty, without further delay, to raise Our voice at once in reproof and condemnation of all that is seen to be out of harmony with the right rule above indicated, in the functions of public worship and in the performance of the ecclesiastical offices. Filled as We are with a most ardent desire to see the true Christian spirit flourish in every respect and be preserved by all the faithful, We deem it necessary to provide before anything else for the sanctity and dignity of the temple, in which the faithful assemble for no other object than that of acquiring this spirit from its foremost and indispensable font, which is the active participation in the most holy mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church. And it is vain to hope that the blessing of heaven will descend abundantly upon us, when our homage to the Most High, instead of ascending in the odor of sweetness, puts into the hand of the Lord the scourges wherewith of old the Divine Redeemer drove the unworthy profaners from the Temple.

    Hence, in order that no one for the future may be able to plead in excuse that he did not clearly understand his duty and that all vagueness may be eliminated from the interpretation of matters which have already been commanded, We have deemed it expedient to point out briefly the principles regulating sacred music in the functions of public worship, and to gather together in a general survey the principal prescriptions of the Church against the more common abuses in this subject. We do therefore publish, motu proprio and with certain knowledge, Our present Instruction to which, as to a juridical code of sacred music (quasi a codice giuridice della musica sacra), We will with the fullness of Our Apostolic Authority that the force of law be given, and We do by Our present handwriting impose its scrupulous observance on all.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Warning! Another document hurl in progress. LOL. Until someone with enough authority to do so stands up and actually enforces this, it isn't worth the paper it is written on. We can produce reams of documents - tinkling brass and clanging cymbals - that will change very little. The enforcement mechanisms were destroyed in the reforms.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Thank you Charles. We can always depend upon you to be the president of pragmatism at the expense of idealism.

    Therefore, WE must enforce the documents ourselves... one musician at a time... and to NOT know (or care, or try to do) what the church expects of US, we are then rendered impotent. So therefore, read on and discuss! ...and let us ALL try to yield any feelings of hopelessness to a belief that we can make a difference. (please don't sing that song!)
    Thanked by 1Eric D. Williams
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Enforcement can come at the price of unemployment unless you have clerical backing. Idealism is great, but it's the pragmatism that will bite you in the arse.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    So, I guess I have to throw out the first comments:

    Nothing should have place, therefore, in the temple calculated to disturb or even merely to diminish the piety and devotion of the faithful, nothing that may give reasonable cause for disgust or scandal, nothing, above all, which directly offends the decorum and sanctity of the sacred functions and is thus unworthy of the House of Prayer and of the Majesty of God. We do not touch separately on the abuses in this matter which may arise. Today Our attention is directed to one of the most common of them, one of the most difficult to eradicate, and the existence of which is sometimes to be deplored in places where everything else is deserving of the highest praise-the beauty and sumptuousness of the temple, the splendor and the accurate performance of the ceremonies, the attendance of the clergy, the gravity and piety of the officiating ministers. Such is the abuse affecting sacred chant and music.

    Holy crap! You can only climb OUT of a ditch when you realize it is IN the ditch that you reside.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Charles:

    Enforcement can come at the price of unemployment unless you have clerical backing. Idealism is great, but it's the pragmatism that will bite you in the arse.


    There is nothing I disagree with here!
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Gotta love this scene. Getting people out of a rut always meets with a situation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3w6c7RUbUs
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,945
    For reference, here is Todd Flowerday's item-by-item coverage of Pope St John Paul II's chirograph issued on the centenary of TLS:

    https://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/category/post-conciliar-liturgy-documents/chirograph-for-the-centenary-of-tls/
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Okay, break it up, you two;-)
    About a week ago I composed an article for the Cafe, coherent or not-you decide, about what I've dubbed "Marie Antoinette Syndrome." No one's read it, I'm pretty sure. Anyway, it boils down to this- The RotR "movement" is fast becoming an impenetrable echo chamber, and in that chamber you will NOT hear what would be a clear and present remedy to "I want to eat my cake, but I want to have all good cakes too!" I don't know about you guys and gals, but my choral library is now completely stocked with chant and choral anthologies which I will never have the pleasure of teaching and conducting thoroughly and completely. And what with Dr. Naples' new 3 part choral Offertorio collection and a possible snag of some St. Pius X hymnals, I'm leaving my successor one magnum library. Which s/he might just choose to dump if I don't finish my real job- the sometimes stealth, sometimes obvious exercise of energy that will convince our local Faithful NOT to settle for mediocrity.
    But, despite islands of ideal orthodoxy, we cannot support (see, HHFrancis Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium) the mentality of a remnant, or Benedict Option withdrawal from mainstream American Roman Catholicism's liturgical progress. Is there any other worldwide conference of bishops that has seen such an upsurge of RotR musical options in the last decade? So, who you gonna call: Bartlett, Ostrowski, Weber, Kelly, Rice or Ghostbusters at yo' parish, 'cause you can't call on them all with equanimity. And I haven't even said, "Uh yo! Ya forgot about Latin and Greek!"
    SPioX's 1903 Motu might best be likened not to a legislative constitution, but one of those lens machines in an eye doctor's exam room. Because each DM, pastor and parish will likely require a specific prescription when single vision, bi or tri-focaled are in play: which is better, number one or number two lens combination?
    The only constant that helps alleviate the Marie Antoinette Syndrome is the William Mahrt cure: does this sound like it belongs in church as true sacred music?
    Now, do feel free to resume sparring.
    Thanked by 1Eric D. Williams
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    melo... your fluent is showing.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    And indeed, whether it is owing to the very nature of this art, fluctuating and variable as it is in itself, or to the succeeding changes in tastes and habits with the course of time, or to the fatal influence exercised on sacred art by profane and theatrical art, or to the pleasure that music directly produces, and that is not always easily contained within the right limits, or finally to the many prejudices on the matter, so lightly introduced and so tenaciously maintained even among responsible and pious persons, the fact remains that there is a general tendency to deviate from the right rule, prescribed by the end for which art is admitted to the service of public worship and which is set forth very clearly in the ecclesiastical Canons, in the Ordinances of the General and Provincial Councils, in the prescriptions which have at various times emanated from the Sacred Roman Congregations, and from Our Predecessors the Sovereign Pontiffs.
    This is just SO WELL PUT!

    It is kind of like looking back on centuries and saying, 'wow... the force of music is so powerful, we STILL can't figure out how to tame it and get it under control and serving the liturgy in the right way!'

    We have been at this over and over and over again, and the fact that each of us lives for so short a time, well, we never really 'get it together', so to speak. Wisdom gets lost in the excitement of newness unfolding, genius of creativity emerges in an explosion that finds itself standing in a new genesis, and the single thread of the chant is propelled by the visceral force of the unbounded realization of the harmonic structure emerging before us.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    melo-your fluent is showing.

    Just call me the LeBron James of liturgy.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • Francis

    , a leading [concern] is without question that of maintaining and promoting the decorum of the House of God in which the august mysteries of religion are celebrated, and where the Christian people assemble to receive the grace of the Sacraments, to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, to adore the most august Sacrament of the Lord's Body and to unite in the common prayer of the Church in the public and solemn liturgical offices. Nothing should have place, therefore, in the temple calculated to disturb or even merely to diminish the piety and devotion of the faithful, nothing that may give reasonable cause for disgust or scandal, nothing, above all, which directly offends the decorum and sanctity of the sacred functions and is thus unworthy of the House of Prayer and of the Majesty of God



    Decorum in the house of God....
    August mysteries of religion are celebrated...
    To adore the most august Sacrament of the Lord's Body...
    Even merely to diminish the piety and devotion of the faithful...


    Here are principles which can govern us, as musicians, as laymen.

    I've never seen such a strong condemnation of the "liturgical renewal" as it has happened since the 1960s, at least.
  • bonniebede
    Posts: 756
    This is interesting but... I think it is frustrating and inhibiting to useful action to do this without also doing this.... (sidebar - I am totally in favour of continuing to educate oneself, otherwise action is likely to be misdirected)

    1. What is my actual area of influence?

    For me .... not the choir, I don't direct it, choose the music nor am I involved in its future direction.
    not the clergy .... unless and until they want to sing their parts there is limited scope to offer help ( I can offer models and examples)

    I can influence the children (childrens schola)

    So for me my field of effective action is
    1. Run childrens schola (they do not sing a mass, but they could, soon)
    2. The kids are growing up... moving towards an older teens schola this coming year (they still won't get to sing at Mass)
    3. we could do an occasional mass, maybe three a year for 'family days' - make this a totally sung mass , which will accomplish three things: give an opportunity for a priest to learn and use his sung parts ; give the kids and families and opportunity to sing a mass now that they can; showcase the attractiveness of a sung liturgy to clergy (gatekeepers) who will see that this mass attracts most of their younger parishioners and practising families.
    4. Pray and fast. Things change. For example for last two years our 'corpus christi' procession did not involve carrying the Blessed sacrament. This year it did. Last year for corpus Christi we had somewhere over the rainbow, it was not sung this year. hurrah.
    This is real progress. But if I sit and read church documents too much I would still be tempted to despair over the gap, instead of rejoicing over the progress and looking to see what I can do next.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    bonniebede (et all)

    Posting this review is NOT intended to bring discouragement or despair, simply to give vision and hope and set a standard not only for ourselves but newbies who are trying to find their way.

    Of course we have to be pragmatic and do what we can can with what we've got. That is all a given.

    "Without a vision the people lose restraint; but happy is the one who follows instruction." Proverbs 29:18

    It is kind of like holding up a standard. It is very hard to hit, but it gives one a sense of aim. I once had a spiritual director who told me, 'You look into the distance to see where you are going... the goal is clear and in the focus. However, the reality is seen through the rods and cones of the eyes... it is directly to your left and right, blurry and out of focus. You must keep your eye on the goal while dealing with the stones rocks and obstacles that are in our immediate surroundings.

    nuff said.

    It is still good to educate ourselves on a standard, in fact, it is preferable. Chris puts it well:

    Here are principles which can govern us, as musicians, as laymen.


    On that note, I will wait a bit to post PART II!
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • To any who are worried about setting an impossibly high standard.


    "Be perfect, as Your Heavenly Father is perfect."


    Too often "being in the world, but not of the world" is replaced by "make necessary compromises".

    Surely, surely, "It's too hard" and "it's not worth it" were Satan's words to Our Blessed Lord in the Garden of Gethsemani.

    Thanked by 1donr
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    I think we need to break this down
    We read :-
    ______
    And indeed, whether it is owing to the

    1) very nature of this art, fluctuating and variable as it is in itself,

    2) or to the succeeding changes in tastes and habits with the course of time,

    3) or to the fatal influence exercised on sacred art by profane and theatrical art,

    4) or to the pleasure that music directly produces, and that is not always easily contained
    within the right limits,

    5) or finally to the many prejudices on the matter, so lightly introduced and so tenaciously maintained even among responsible and pious persons,

    the fact remains that there is a general tendency to deviate from the right rule, ....
    _________

    All of these are problems that will always be with us, but do/should not prevent us from striving.
    Another thread quotes St Cyprian http://blog.adw.org/2015/06/on-reverence-and-reserve-in-the-holy-liturgy-a-meditation-on-an-instruction-by-st-cyprian/. As a PIP I note the way in which chant melodies get more elaborate as time passes e.g. Asperges II tenth century to Asperges I thirteenth century, and I wonder is this progress or is it musicians amusing themselves rather than focusing on God (point 3).
    I also detect point 5 at work in this thread.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    5) or finally to the many prejudices on the matter, so lightly introduced and so tenaciously maintained even among responsible and pious persons, ..
    I also detect point 5 at work in this thread.

    Welcome to MSF, af Hawkins.
    Would you please expiate your last sentence there? Thanks, Charles
  • Charles,

    I think you mean expatiate, not expiate?

    Chris
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Thanks, Chris, why yes you're right. Freudian slip?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    Perhaps, as an outsider, I have mistaken banter among friends for sniping from entrenched positions. However, I would really like to read the views of liturgical musicians on Pius X analysis, since his reforms of music,liturgy and sacramental practice are the foundation of where we are now. A collegiate review by knowledgeable people could be really stimulating for me.
    Thanked by 1Eric D. Williams
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    I would really like to read the views of liturgical musicians on Pius X analysis, since his reforms of music,liturgy and sacramental practice are the foundation of where we are now. A collegiate review by knowledgeable people could be really stimulating for me.
    Thank you for your comments a_f_hawkins. It is fascinating to review these things and have discussions about the content then seeing how we are 'progressing' (probably a bad word in this instance)... more like, how we are sustaining and holding true to the challenge.

    I will post part 2 soon.
  • a_f_Hawkins,

    It would be more accurate ( my learned friends' opinions notwithstanding) to describe Pope Pius X's motu proprio as a statement of where we should be, but it can't describe where we are in any OF parish I know, and in few enough EF parishes I know.

  • francis
    Posts: 10,668

    Part I. General Principles


    1. Sacred music, being a complementary part of the solemn liturgy, participates in the general scope of the liturgy, which is the glory of God and the sanctification and edification of the faithful. It contributes to the decorum and the splendor of the ecclesiastical ceremonies, and since its principal office is to clothe with suitable melody the liturgical text proposed for the understanding of the faithful, its proper aim is to add greater efficacy to the text, in order that through it the faithful may be the more easily moved to devotion and better disposed for the reception of the fruits of grace belonging to the celebration of the most holy mysteries.

    2. Sacred music should consequently possess, in the highest degree, the qualities proper to the liturgy, and in particular sanctity and goodness of form, which will spontaneously produce the final quality of universality.

    It must be holy, and must, therefore, exclude all profanity not only in itself, but in the manner in which it is presented by those who execute it.

    It must be true art, for otherwise it will be impossible for it to exercise on the minds of those who listen to it that efficacy which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her liturgy the art of musical sounds.

    But it must, at the same time, be universal in the sense that while every nation is permitted to admit into its ecclesiastical compositions those special forms which may be said to constitute its native music, still these forms must be subordinated in such a manner to the general characteristics of sacred music that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them.
  • But it must, at the same time, be universal in the sense that while every nation is permitted to admit into its ecclesiastical compositions those special forms which may be said to constitute its native music, still these forms must be subordinated in such a manner to the general characteristics of sacred music that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them.



    Here is the round condemnation of the nonsensical idea so widespread nowadays that each community can only worship God in its own tongue, and that, therefore, we need to divide parishes by "communities" or "cultures" or whatever other notions exist. National churches are foreign to the Catholicity of the Church.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,768
    ...that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them.

    A two-edged sword if "the general characteristics of sacred music" are to be inferred from what gets the imprimatur.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Part II. The Different Kinds of Sacred Music

    3. These qualities are to be found, in the highest degree, in Gregorian Chant, which is, consequently the Chant proper to the Roman Church, the only chant she has inherited from the ancient fathers, which she has jealously guarded for centuries in her liturgical codices, which she directly proposes to the faithful as her own, which she prescribes exclusively for some parts of the liturgy, and which the most recent studies have so happily restored to their integrity and purity.

    On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down the following rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.

    The ancient traditional Gregorian Chant must, therefore, in a large measure be restored to the functions of public worship, and the fact must be accepted by all that an ecclesiastical function loses none of its solemnity when accompanied by this music alone.

    Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times.

    4. The above-mentioned qualities are also possessed in an excellent degree by Classic Polyphony, especially of the Roman School, which reached its greatest perfection in the fifteenth century, owing to the works of Pierluigi da Palestrina, and continued subsequently to produce compositions of excellent quality from a liturgical and musical standpoint. Classic Polyphony agrees admirably with Gregorian Chant, the supreme model of all sacred music, and hence it has been found worthy of a place side by side with Gregorian Chant, in the more solemn functions of the Church, such as those of the Pontifical Chapel. This, too, must therefore be restored largely in ecclesiastical functions, especially in the more important basilicas, in cathedrals, and in the churches and chapels of seminaries and other ecclesiastical institutions in which the necessary means are usually not lacking.

    5. The Church has always recognized and favored the progress of the arts, admitting to the service of religion everything good and beautiful discovered by genius in the course of ages-always, however, with due regard to the liturgical laws. Consequently modern music is also admitted to the Church, since it, too, furnishes compositions of such excellence, sobriety and gravity, that they are in no way unworthy of the liturgical functions.

    Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces.

    6. Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears less suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship is the theatrical style, which was in the greatest vogue, especially in Italy, during the last century. This of its very nature is diametrically opposed to Gregorian Chant and classic polyphony, and therefore to the most important law of all good sacred music. Besides the intrinsic structure, the rhythm and what is known as the conventionalism of this style adapt themselves but badly to the requirements of true liturgical music.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  •  
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Mike:

    In my reading of this (and more extensively in The Papal Legislation On Sacred Music), I am surmising that profane includes a number of things: for instance, a jazz or theatrical style of music would be profane as it is not "free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms".

    Jazz has its roots in other spiritualities that promote an anti-Christian sentiment, if we really wish to 'face the music'.

    I think the meaning of the word 'profane' as used above has in itself been profaned since the time of the writing. But if one deduces that the chant, polyphony and organ are that which is NOT profane, it would seem that most music used today is 'profane'. And to my sense, even things like the Shubert Ave Maria and similar works fall into the profane category as they very much follow the sentiment of theatrical music.

    On another note, the introduction of chromaticism into the harmonic language of modal church music presents another whole quandary to the question, don't you think? And this brings me to mention the music of someone such as Bach, who can be VERY chromatic. At some point we start listening to the music at the expense of the word, if you get my drift. Dare I say (as much as I love Bach and emulate his very style in my own writing) that it could be a distraction? That is a tough question that tumbles around in my own mind from time to time, and one that very few people even consider, much less adopting the "fabricated" harmonic language of other composers, such as Messiaen, which completely depart from the 'official' harmonic language of the church modes.

    (Ducking)
    Thanked by 1Eric D. Williams
  • Francis,

    I guess I'll be ducking right along with you.

    Could you provide (for the readership) an authority to support the claim that
    Jazz has its roots in other spiritualities that promote an anti-Christian sentiment, if we really wish to 'face the music'.
    ?

    Thanks.

    God bless,

    Chris
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Chris:

    Perhaps I should reword my statement. If one "follows the music" and goes to the culture where it is practiced, its "temples" are usually not churches, although, voodoo and jazz seemed to have had a natural attraction to each other as you will read about here for instance.

    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo

    It is a curious thing.

    Of course there are many flavors of jazz. Jazz is not evil in itself (saying with a slight question in my own mind). I love to play jazz. If you go to my website, you will find jazz arrangements for sale. Recently I transcribed 'The Thumb' for piano taking Montgomery's guitar for the right hand and his bassist's lines for the left. Love it!

    Of course, rock emerged from Jazz and, well... though we all love a good ole rock tune, it's not hard to see how it could be the antithesis of sacred music.

    So, my question is, how DOES one define profane?!

    UPDATE

    Another interesting read.

    http://www.neworleansonline.com/neworleans/music/musichistory/jazzbirthplace.html

    and

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/debra-devi/voodoo_b_1518269.html

    Makes one think twice about the beat we all 'follow'... and why it is now rampant in our own churches to the chagrin of many on this very forum.

    Other Questions

    Does music 'conjure' spirits (from one place or the other)?

    Does music and it's style come from a spiritual realm (from one place or the other)?

    Do we become the "medium" through which music passes, having great effect (for good or ill on our society)?

    This book (which I read in the early nineties when Cole first wrote it, and whom I visited) might help answer some of your own questions.

    http://www.amazon.com/Music-Morals-Theological-Appraisal-Psychological/dp/081890660X

    Oh... and by the way... I recently sang an eight part Marian motet with the brothers who live with Cole and they told me, he loves and plays jazz! lol.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Yes, when these old documents say 'profane', they simply mean 'worldly', 'secular'.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Part III. The Liturgical Text

    7. The language proper to the Roman Church is Latin. Hence it is forbidden to sing anything whatever in the vernacular in solemn liturgical functions-much more to sing in the vernacular the variable or common parts of the Mass and Office.

    8. As the texts that may be rendered in music, and the order in which they are to be rendered, are determined for every liturgical function, it is not lawful to confuse this order or to change the prescribed texts for others selected at will, or to omit them either entirely or even in part, unless when the rubrics allow that some versicles of the text be supplied with the organ, while these versicles are simply recited in the choir. However, it is permissible, according to the custom of the Roman Church, to sing a motet to the Blessed Sacrament after the Benedictus in a solemn Mass. It is also permitted, after the Offertory prescribed for the mass has been sung, to execute during the time that remains a brief motet to words approved by the Church.

    9. The liturgical text must be sung as it is in the books, without alteration or inversion of the words, without undue repetition, without breaking syllables, and always in a manner intelligible to the faithful who listen.

  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    it is permissible, according to the custom of the Roman Church, to sing a motet to the Blessed Sacrament after the Benedictus in a solemn Mass.


    Huh. Never heard that in any EF Mass I attended during the '50's. Maybe my Archdiocese was Jansenist?

    Re: jazz. E. Michael Jones (Fidelity Magazine) wrote a few essays on that topic back in the '70's, propounding exactly the same thesis--that rock'n'roll is the child of jazz, which was African/Creole in origin and NOT in any way 'sacred,' nor even 'religious.' He went so far as to state that the stuff is/was, basically, erotic. B-16 said as much about rock and rock's linear descendants, too.
  • Dad29,

    Back up a second. When the Sanctus and Benedictus are sung polyphonically, they come on either side of the Consecration. Then, following the Benedictus, a motet may be sung. In our parish, our pastor has asked me to play the organ in this spot, and since this is the time of the Memento of the dead, I play sections of the Requiem: Pie Jesu, In paradisum..... If one didn't sing the Benedictus polyphonically, it isn't sung after the Consecration..... and so most people didn't think to sing anything after what wasn't there. I don't think it would be a sign of Jansenism, although, if you were in America, there was (and still is) a heavy undercurrent of Jansenism.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    Yah, well, in the EF Masses I attended, the S & B WERE polyphonic--and the 'J' question was playful, ya'know.

    Curious anecdotal addition to this: a well-known blogger-priest commanded me to NOT play the organ post-Consecration b/c 'the PIPs should have silent reflection.' Never bothered to ask him whether a polyphonic Benedictus would be disruptive to reflection, which must have been the case in his 'home' parish in the Twin Cities, if one accepts his premise.

    But then, logic wasn't his forte.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Ouch! ;-)
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668

    Part IV. External Form of Sacred Composition


    10. The different parts of the mass and the Office must retain, even musically, that particular concept and form which ecclesiastical tradition has assigned to them, and which is admirably brought out by Gregorian Chant. The method of composing an introit, a gradual, an antiphon, a psalm, a hymn, a Gloria in excelsis, etc., must therefore be distinct from one another.

    11. In particular the following rules are to be observed:

    The Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, etc., of the Mass must preserve the unity of composition proper to the text. It is not lawful, therefore, to compose them in separate movements, in such a way that each of these movements form a complete composition in itself, and be capable of being detached from the rest and substituted by another.

    In the office of Vespers it should be the rule to follow the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, which prescribes Gregorian Chant for the psalmody and permits figured music for the versicles of the Gloria Patri and the hymn.

    It will nevertheless be lawful on greater solemnities to alternate the Gregorian Chant of the choir with the so called falsi-bordoni or with verses similarly composed in a proper manner.

    It is also permissible occasionally to render single psalms in their entirety in music, provided the form proper to psalmody be preserved in such compositions; that is to say, provided the singers seem to be psalmodising among themselves, either with new motifs or with those taken from Gregorian Chant or based upon it.

    The psalms known as di concerto are therefore forever excluded and prohibited.

    In the hymns of the Church the traditional form of the hymn is preserved. It is not lawful, therefore, to compose, for instance, a Tantum ergo in such wise that the first strophe presents a romanza, a cavatina, an adagio and the Genitori an allegro.

    The antiphons of the Vespers must be as a rule rendered with the Gregorian melody proper to each. Should they, however, in some special case be sung in figured music, they must never have either the form of a concert melody or the fullness of a motet or a cantata.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668

    Part V. The Singers


    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    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.

  • 13. 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.


    Why was this principle abandoned? Was there a dearth of boys (as, later, a shortage of priests) or was it the desire for equality (as later a claim of marriage) or something else? Perhaps Chesterton has the answer: the Christian principles weren't found to have failed, but left untried?
    Thanked by 1stulte
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Chris:

    This one seems very foreign to our thinking, and at first even appears as sexist. However, this was our tradition for how long? It is amazing that we have lost so much.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    There are obvious exceptions to this exclusion of women. A Benedictine convent would surely expect the nuns to chant the office. Certainly St Hildegard of Bingen wrote liturgical music as well as her musical plays and hymns. Similarly Vivaldi wrote liturgical music for female voices, and was paid to do so. In this context the women are leading an enclosed life, but the public would often have access to places where they could see and hear the liturgy.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    afhawkins

    Yes, obvious exceptions, but not the norm.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    The principle of choir singing being reserved to men has, it seems, not really been lost in this country; rather, it was never observed from the start.

    In the United States, a mission country, parish churches were not equipped with chapters of clerics able to form a clerical choir. Instead, lay choirs of both sexes were constructed, to sing from a place outside the sanctuary, usually in a loft. After the Holy See issued the first music documents, containing norms about reserving singing to men, bishops wrote from the US to explain the practice in this country and ask for a modification of the rule, and a permission was granted, on condition that the men and women singers be separated physically, to avoid any temptation.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Richard,

    So.... do we know why the American bishops said "we can't do that here"? Is it the same (usual) plaint about living in a pluralistic society?

  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    They didn't say "we can't do that here" but rather "we've never done that here".

    I suspect, in a very speculative way, that the lack of clerical choirs was related to the limited number of clergy, and also related to bishops' efforts to avoid the establishment of cathedral chapters which would act as a restraint on the power of the bishop.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Part VI. Organ and Instruments

    15. Although the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music, music with the accompaniment of the organ is also permitted. In some special cases, within due limits and with proper safeguards, other instruments may be allowed, but never without the special permission of the Ordinary, according to prescriptions of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum.

    16. As the singing should always have the principal place, the organ or other instruments should merely sustain and never oppress it.

    17. It is not permitted to have the chant preceded by long preludes or to interrupt it with intermezzo pieces.

    18. The sound of the organ as an accompaniment to the chant in preludes, interludes, and the like must be not only governed by the special nature of the instrument, but must participate in all the qualities proper to sacred music as above enumerated.

    19. The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.

    20. It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the place-provided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ.

    21. In processions outside the church the Ordinary may give permission for a band, provided no profane pieces be executed. It would be desirable in such cases that the band confine itself to accompanying some spiritual canticle sung in Latin or in the vernacular by the singers and the pious associations which take part in the procession.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Hayburn's "Papal Legislation on Sacred Music", p. 467, has a dubium and response from the bishop of New York, given 12/18/1908.

    "Throughout almost the entire United States, the term 'choir' designates a group of a few singers, both men and women, who are chosen to sing the liturgical texts and solemn Masses. The choir, or group of men and women or girls, is located outside the sanctuary in a place designated for its use alone, and, moreover, this place is usually at some distance from the altar. There is no other choir to sing or recite the liturgical texts."

    Then he goes on to ask whether this would be permitted by the 1908 decree concerning the singing of women in church.

    The answer was that the men should be completely separated from the women, unless it is very inconvenient to do so; and the bishop is to see to the matter.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668

    Part VII. The Length of Liturgical Chant


    22. It is not lawful to keep the priest at the altar waiting on account of the chant or the music for a length of time not allowed by the liturgy. According to the ecclesiastical prescriptions the Sanctus of the Mass should be over before the elevation, and therefore the priest must here have regard for the singers. The Gloria and the Credo ought, according to the Gregorian tradition, to be relatively short.

    23. In general it must be considered a very grave abuse when the liturgy in ecclesiastical functions is made to appear secondary to and in a manner at the service of the music, for the music is merely a part of the liturgy and its humble handmaid.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    Well, then. Part VII, 22/23 eliminates all that "orchestral Masses" stuff. Did anyone send Austrian Bishops the memo?
    Thanked by 1francis