MS was written after Vatican II as the Instruction on how to carry out the musical principles expressed in Sacrosanctum Concilium, so I think it would be a mistake to consider it as somehow dismissed wholesale by the eventual revision of the Roman Missal. The GIRM even cites MS as a reference.

Are there any cases of particular laws approved by the Holy See that contradict MS? I don't happen to know: are you saying that that has happened?

I don't object to it, but you are correct it is a recommendation. It is also from an earlier time and different circumstances. I would hope no one would think they had to do it only this way and try to implement it to the degree that it backfired on them.

I never said the Holy See contradicted it, but that in matters liturgical more authority has been transferred to the conferences of bishops.

I think the objection comes from the fact that there was not a Novus Ordo in existence when MS was written. I agree with Chonak that it is a recommendation, but I don't agree that it is law. Much has changed since then. To my knowledge the missal revisions and GIRM were submitted for the recognitio. They are fully approved. SttL was never on the same level as any of the above.

I would hate for some inexperienced musician to read dogmatic forum statements that MS is binding, go immediately implement it, and get fired in the process. There's good stuff in MS, but the practical application is a rather subtle process.

.

If my bishop sent me a friendly personal email with some suggestions about what to do at Mass, I wouldn't respond to that email by saying that I don't have to do those things because his casual email to me DOES NOT HAVE THE BINDING FORCE OF LAW.

The fact that SttL DOES NOT HAVE THE BINDING FORCE OF LAW does not mean that the wisest or most prudent thing to do with its contents is to ignore them completely, or disparage them online.

Fr. Krisman I would respectfully disagree with you.

Sing to the Lord is an advisory document only. As such the document itself is not BINDING, in the way the Roman Missal is binding.

It may have great suggestions on implementing the instructions in the Missal, but those are only suggestions.

Musicam Sacram on the other hand is a legislative document. Until it is abrogated or suppressed it IS binding.

Now...if my Bishop sent me an email (friendly or otherwise) as long as his suggestions didn't contradict the law of the church, I would out of prudence follow them. However, if his suggestions did contradict the law of the church I would respectfully refuse to follow them.

If I did otherwise, I would be failing my obligation to uphold the laws of the church in the area of sacred music, which is the ministry I and other sacred musicians have been entrusted with.

To encourage a musician to go against his conscience in order to preserve his job is a very frightening thought.

There is law, then there is law. There is also realizing there is more than one way to accomplish most things. Confrontation is not always the wisest path, when a more indirect route can get you to the same place.

Wendi and Ben,

Here is but one example of a general norm (and there are many) restated in SttL:

In Lent, musical instruments should be used only to support the singing of the gathered assembly.88

That footnote 88 cites GIRM 313.

Ben, in my earlier posting I stated, "SttL also presents and comments on some norms from the general law of the Church, for example, from the GIRM. These norms are binding..." I did not say that the commentary has the force of law.

(Cough, cough) StTL can be more binding when an ordinary adopts it as a liturgical norm for his jurisdiction. Bishops can make liturgical law, even when episcopal conferences can't.

(Cough, cough) StTL can be more binding when an ordinary adopts it as a liturgical norm for his jurisdiction. Bishops can make liturgical law, even when episcopal conferences can't.

I hope that rarely happens, it contradicts the missal explicitly in at least one place. And ya wonder why they didn't submit it to Rome...probably because they knew it would never be approved

Bishops can make liturgical law, even when episcopal conferences can't.

Yes, they can, in practice. Many of us have heard or experienced cases where bishops mandated certain practices and/or behaviors for their particular dioceses. There is not much anyone can do about it.

job vrs. conscience... job vrs. conscience... hmmm... conscience (conviction from God) wins. See you ALL on judgement day.

SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

ARTICLE 6
MORAL CONSCIENCE

1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47

If more Catholics followed their conscience, the Church would be much stronger in our world today.

I'd rather be 'alone with God' on the steps than living in the house of the...

UPDATE

Here is the Latin... need a translation:

quoniam melior est dies in atriis tuis super milia elegi abiectus esse in domo Dei mei magis quam habitare in tabernaculis impietatis

The date on the copy of MS I read had a publication date of 1967. Unless revised in more recent times, it applies to the EF mass and has little, if any, connection to the current liturgy.

Really? So the 'hermeneutic of rupture' operates here?

But the Dialogues, the Ordinary and the Proper all still exist, and as far as that goes, it still makes sense to chant the dialogues - the simplest parts of the Mass - then add the ordinary, then the 'propers' according to what GIRM option works best for the parish and the choir, keeping in mind that Gregorian chant is proper to the Roman Liturgy, and that the texts of the Graduals (Graduale Romanum and/or Graduale Simplex) come first.

I don't see how this aspect of MS can't be applied to the OF.

As a point of information, "Sing to the Lord" cites Musicam sacram ten times.

It appears that as of 2007, the US bishops' music subcommittee (God bless them) thought it was relevant to present-day Ordinary Form practice.

CharlesW is persistent in asserting and asserting, but with nothing but his own assertions to justify his opinion. Well, people have a right to their opinions: everybody has one.

I do what I can using chant Ordinaries, some Propers, and one of our priests is willing to chant Dialogues. That's about as far as I can go with it. The entrance hymns, responsorial psalms, and etc. are here to stay, so I can do nothing about those. I am pretty sure that in many places, musicians can do nowhere near that much. I find it interesting that some who make the most noise about implementing MS are in parishes where I know they are not allowed to do so.

I realize GIRM was not created out of the air, and builds on previous practices and documents. However, it is GIRM that I am required to follow, not necessarily the documents it references. Those referenced documents can contain items that are no longer mandated practice.

It should be noted that "progressive solemnity" is not found in Musicam Sacram. The clear instruction on the degrees of participation is the basis of the discussion on what came to be called progressive solemnity. But it should also be noted that this discussion in Musicam Sacram comes in the context of the statement that the distinction between the low Mass and high Mass is to be retained. Thus the degrees of participation are a prescription for the development of a completely sung Mass, not of varying the amount of singing according to the day or the season. That interpretation ignores the basic import of the text of Musicam Sacram.

Musicam sacram remains liturgical law, and it applies to the ordinary form, mutatis mutandum.

Therefore, clearly, any rubrics not expressly adopted are abolished.

This discussion isn't about Missal rubrics.

yes

Exactly as I thought, Mark. Where the rubrics are silent or don't say in the NO, you can't assume anything in the old rite is to be followed.

Sprinkling - Not there most of the time in the NO. Easter season is the exception and I may be at the only parish in town that even does that much.

Gradual - Just what exactly am I supposed to do with it?

Ordinary and Propers - Still there, although the Propers get abbreviated in practice and not all of them are used, again in practice.

Prayers at the foot of the altar - Has anyone even seen those who doesn't attend the EF?

Greeting/Response - Not even similar.

Sad to say, even those things that are still on the books have disappeared through lack of use. It is rare in this part of the world to even hear the Confiteor and the Kyrie. Again, my parish is one of the few that still does these.

Things are simply more prayerful,
simply more "Catholic,"
simply more fulfilling,
when the texts of Mass are chanted.

No need to cite anything other than common sense.

Yup Amen, Melo. Might I add that your comment radiates depth of understanding and brevity. Bravo.

May be a record, Chris and sweet MaryAnn:
Three Californians agree.

I have to agree, Andrew. Had it been published in 1961, I'd say it was for EF. But it was clearly a post-reform document. Even if it was before the Missal, there's no way they'd issue an in-depth document like that for missal that was clearly transitional. The only other viable option is the one you propose: it was written for the new Mass.

Also, good point about the GS.

One need look no further than the Graduale Simplex, published in the same year as MS (coincidence?).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssnw2GA657s