And reactions from women who are against the practice are far more severe.

Kindness sort of goes out the door fast in many Catholic churches...

I thought of BRF immediately, too.

Revisiting this old thread because this is still apparently a bone of contention in some Latin Mass venues. A friend of mine was informed in a rather dramatic fashion that she was not allowed to sing the propers. She was singing the propers at a weekday Mass at a diocesan Latin Mass parish (very competently, I might add), but the new pastor was not pleased and sent a server to the loft shortly after Mass began to tell her to stop singing. He then proceeded to change the Mass mid-stream to a Low Mass to prevent her from singing any more.

(This incident occurred about two years ago, but the prohibition against women is still in place.)

Upset by this draconian approach, I have begun a search for more legislation regarding this issue in addition to the provision in Musicae Sacrae cited above.

I was wondering if Canon 230.2 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law might address this issue.

Since Canon 230 states the following: §2. "Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law," on what basis can women be excluded from singing in scholas in the EF?

There is also a very thoughtful article on this issue by "Unknown" at the New Liturgical Movement blog.

Commentator or cantor? please ban commentators! (Including the Novus Ordo version!)

the new pastor was not pleased and sent a server to the loft shortly after Mass began to tell her to stop singing. He then proceeded to change the Mass mid-stream to a Low Mass to prevent her from singing any more

Notwithstanding the question behind this thread, the event you describe was a horrible liturgical and pastoral abuse. The divine admonitions against judging priests, which often weigh heavily, weigh particularly heavily in this case. Suffice to say, in reading of this anecdote, my nose was not comforted by the sweet odor of Christ but rather troubled by something resembling sulphur.

With that said, both the 1967 Musicam sacram and the 1983 Code of Canon Law do not take precedence over the 1962 rubrics, as per the 2011 instruction Universae ecclesiae, para. 28:

28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.

The PCED "embarrassment of riches" letter you quote above, however, does have effect, and allows a prudent way forward without offending against truth or nullifying the underpinnings of the TLM. I've also been looking for the letter, and if anyone has a copy, I hope they would post it.

I'm very, very late to this thread.

It seems to me that there needs to be a positive theological and teleological reason to include women as chanters, not merely an appeal to "Americans [or Germans, or Argentines...] have done this for years and Rome hasn't mounted effective opposition." That's an argument from neglect. Similarly, any argument which begins from "This is the 21st Century..." or "You won't accept anything unless it was done that way in 19th Century Russia" begin from premises which sound alarming like "Squatters' rights"

Jeffrey Morse's "chant is for everyone" argument (illustrated by Julie Coll and her references to the Society) is valid, so far as the Ordinary goes, but I'm not sure it applies to the Propers. If the Propers are sung by religious sisters in a convent, is that adequate reason to export the practice to lay women outside the convent?

I do believe that the current rules/documents DO allow for women (of all ages) to sing/chant, with or without male voices mixed. We will continue to have our music inclusive along those lines.

As a former pipe organ builder, I don't really consider the female voice to be the "octave" of the male voice, but rather a 4' Flute added to the 8' Principal, as the female voice is a totally different character from the male voice. I also base my organ accompaniment registration for chant along those lines.

I had days in my career when I would have been grateful to have Smurfs and Oompa Loompas sing if I could get them. Better them than nothing.

Musicae Sacrae Disciplina (1955) {my emphases and correction}

74. Where it is impossible to have schools of singers or where there are not enough choir boys, it is allowed that "a group of men and women or girls, located in a place outside the sanctuary set apart for the exclusive use of this group, can sing the liturgical texts at Solemn Mass, as long as the men are completely separated from the women and girls and everything unbecoming is avoided. The Ordinary is bound in conscience in this matter." [Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, No's. 3964 (17 Sep 1897), 4201 4210 (17 Jan 1908), 4231 (12 Feb 1909). ]

De Musica Sacra (1958)

25 The active participation of the faithful in the solemn Mass can be accomplished in three degrees:
c. In the third degree all those present are so proficient in the Gregorian chant that they can also chant the parts of the Proper of the Mass. One must insist above all on this full participation in the chant in religious communities and in seminaries.

gsharpe34 shows up an interesting point. If our comprehension of Latin is so poor that Popes get the wrong end of the stick when reading decrees, what is the point of claiming that the Church should use Latin because its meaning is clear and unchanging? My Latin is certainly inadequate to judge whether SRC decree 3964 says (of women and girls singing) either that it is an abuse to be suppressed forthwith, or that it can permitted if abuse is avoided.
OTOH 4210 (17Jan1908) is clear - is it licit that women sitting in the pews can sing parts of the Mass? Affirmative (with qualifications).

Thanks tomjaw I agree with, but could apply nuance to, most of those points.
Of course legislation is open to change, we are no longer required to use Pustet's latest edition of the Gradual! So even if Pius XII misunderstood/misrepresented SRC #3964 his 1955 legislation still stands for the 1962 EF, and permits women to sing the liturgical text, not excluding Propers. He does misquote it, by conflating part of the question and part of the answer.

« coetus tum virorum ac mulierum seu puellarum, in loco eius, soli usui destinato extra cancellos positus, textus liturgicos in Missa sollemni cantare possit, [?]
dummodo viri a mulieribus et puellis omnino sint separati, vitato quolibet inconvenienti et onerata super his Ordinariorum conscientia »

As far as "no amount of legislation", we should remember the limit of this legislation. It permits, but does not command. The pastor is not forbidden from allowing women to sing the Propers, but he is not required to allow it. (So many negatives in one sentence!) As the spectre of pre-1962 Bugninisms has been already been summoned to this thread, we can consider the bombastic analogy that pastors are also neither forbidden from appointing commentators nor required to do so, and understand our recalcitrant enemy's probable counterargument.

In light of these negativisms, and how foreign they ring in our postmodern ears, CGZ has rightly called us to give positive reasons from the Church's store of wisdom to advance our cause, which is the cause of sacred music itself. Women's and girls' voices singing (well) praise to God in the words and melodies assigned to the choir in the liturgy of Holy Roman Church is pleasing to God and edifying to the hearer. We know this at least from the ancient tradition of singing nuns. We also know that sung Mass sung well is worthy of the effort required. The PCED letter reminds us that whenever a parish finds a Catholic who can sing the liturgy well, this is a rare treasure. How can such a treasure be squandered (or talent be buried, if you prefer), when there are so many opportunities to put it to use for the greater glory of God and the evangelization of our dear land?

To understand the dichotomy here, it is not between women or men, but between making sacred music or not making sacred music. "Surely some way" reminds us that even from 5,000 miles away, it's a safe bet that there is plenty of opportunity in any given parish to add more beautiful sacred music.

It seems to me the decline of the Office in the west has not helped the cause of chant. Those who attend the Office, or Divine Praises, get much more of an exposure to it.

I feel like leaving off the entirety of a & b in #25 of de musica sacra misleads one as regards the context of c.

This whole point, number 25, is talking about congregational singing, and the congregation's ability to sing the Mass.

-(a)The congregations must be taught to chant the responses at Mass.

-(b)Great care must be taken that the congregations learn the Ordinary, but it's understandable that longer parts of the Ordinary, like the Gloria and Credo, might be performed by only the choir, and not all present, if need be.

-(c) If "all those present," most especially in religious communities and in seminaries (because there is no excuse for not instructing religious and those preparing for religious life in these parts of the Mass), but if "all those present" in the congregation are capable of singing the responses, Ordinary, and Propers of the Mass, then it is not set aside for the schola/choir, and all those in the congregation should sing it... because they especially want to stress that point for religious communities and seminaries, rather than having a small choir sing The Mass, when all should be capable and therefore should be doing so.

That is how I read #25.
Surely, that is what they are saying?

Corrine, sure, your right about #25. But it demonstrates that women are not forbidden from singing Propers by the Church's legislation just because they are women. Screwball priests cannot be legislated away however.

Corrine, while that's a very kind and obliging sentiment, you should know that there are certain groups of people in the Latin Mass universe that will easily and happily exclude all females from singing at the Latin Mass, regardless of their opinions or feelings.

The friend I mentioned above has experienced many times the phenomenon of professional non-Catholic male singers being brought in to sing the Propers while she, a faithful Catholic laywoman and very competent cantrix, is relegated to the sidelines. I don't see how that practice accords with the spirit of Musicae Sacrae and De Musica Sacra.

If you ever find that golden rule book, please let me know. : )

It's a shame that these truly contemptible attitudes still prevail in celebrations of the EF. They do not, though, hold true for the OF. I have many times directed a schola of men & women at our masses at UST's St Basil's chapel. I have, to much dynamic expression, taken a cue from what must have been (as some research shows) common practice at certain important churches in the middle ages of using the men as the basis for most chant and adding the octave singing boys at certain points in various chants, thus achieving great dynamic contrasts and drama with the calculated entrance of their treble voices. The same role can be fulfilled in our time by women. Some here may want to experiment with this. Paul McCreesh's CD of Christmas at Salisbury illustrates this nicely. Too, the sudden and calculated impact of John Sheppard's polyphonic mass contrasting with surrounding plainchant is quite awe inspiring. It seems to me that neither an all choral nor an all chant mass conveys at certain points the inherent drama of the mass. (It must be admitted, though, that an all chant mass has an inherent sacral character that is not approached by any other choices.)

An interesting observation, Chris.
You are likely correct about some Ordinariate folk.
The sole ministry of women in the Sanctuary itself is that of the traditional Anglican Altar Guild, composed only of women who fulfill the role equivalent to that of the Sacristan in other Catholic churches.
Also, other than servers, only instituted acolytes and lectors will be found in various roles in the Sanctuary at mass or office.

What it does do is say that if everyone is capable, a smaller group should not be set aside to perform, and the rest be relegated to listening... even if all are men (which is why it doesn't demonstrate such or definitively close the conversation, as without proper context Julie took it to mean).

Which is a weird sentiment. on the one hand, I love when entire parishes can sing all or substantial parts of the Requiem, the First Friday Mass, the propers of the major feasts… but on the other hand, DMS contradicts the tradition as referred to by Pius X, which calls for such a dedicated group, ideally clerics in the choir of the church…

Also, other than servers, only instituted acolytes and lectors will be found in various roles in the Sanctuary at mass or office.

This isn't true, although it may be true at OLW, and it's a bit of a difficult point now that the pope changed the admission requirements…

Alas! I remember from back in the fifties they were discussing whether women should serve on vestries (the Anglican equivalent to parish councils - except that they have teeth!) I was a youth at St Alban's at that time and thought it a particularly bad idea. I even imagined that if this ever came to pass the steeple would fall down. Too, it raised the alarm that if they allowed this the next step would be priestesses. Sure enough some years later we had priestesses, not only priestesses, but bishopesses. This disturbed me deeply, as it did many others who, but for the Petrine supremacy, held fast to the Catholic faith. 1) It shot the last leg off that Anglicandom had to claim to be a Catholic body. 2) Never in our Judaeo-Christian history have their been priestesses. (Plenty of pagan ones, bot no Cristian or Jewish ones - which is likely why these priestesses insist on being called 'priests'.)

This has happened very incrementally (termite-like), by clever evangelizing of bishops and priests for years. The bishops decided 'no' many times, and these women always went on grumbling (Great was their grumbling!) that the Holy Spirit had not been heard. Time again the Holy Spirit had said 'NO', After a few more encounters, though, the bishops finally caved in and gave the answer that these women wanted to hear. It is notable that such female self willfulness will without fail insist that the Holy Ghost has not been heard unless and until he comes to seem to say what these women want to hear.

They will even sit down to discuss the theological issues while listening very carefully to the Church's arguments, and having heard them, will immediately aver that 'Jesus really didn't mean that in that way (how do they know that) - or that 'Jesus only chose men or didn't do such and such because it wasn't done in his day', One could go on, there is never an end to womankind's demands. The fact is that priestesses were common all over the world (THE PAGAN WORLD that is!). They have never existed in Judaeo-Christian religion or culture, Nor have they ever been permitted in Sanctuaries - except pagan ones.

And If Jesus had meant to choose women as apostles amongst his followers he would not have hesitated to do so - NOT because it wasn't done in his time, but because he wanted to (which he clearly didn't). Something that was or wasn't done in Jesus time had no influence at all on the things he did that weren't relevant to his culture. We know quite well that Jesus paid the price for working of the Sabbath, forgiving sins on his own authority, and worst of all, going about saying things like 'before Abraham was I AM', 'I and the Father are one', 'If ye have seen me ye have seen the Father', and one could go on. These are explicit claims to Godhead, which the Pharisees understood acutely. If he had wanted women as apostles and priests that would have been a small matter compared to his 'blasphemy' and assertions of Godhead. By his own words he left nothing undone that the Father had sent him to do. Augustine says 'to know the mind of Christ is to be saved'. The assertion that an we may discard even an iota from that mind because it doesn't fit into XXIst century post-Christian thought is fraught with spiritual peril.

Christ came in the 'fullness of time' to set a decree for all mankind, past, present, and future (both women and men) that revealed the path to true life in God. He was not, as some would insist, 'time bound', nor, as is evident in the prophets, the gospels, the epistles, the writings of many saints, and the lives of countless faithful throughout or earthly home, culture and custom bound. His is a singular and Universal Truth (if I may borrow from Yves Congar), applicable to and incumbent upon all who have ever, do, or will live.

(Still, women should not be disallowed from singing in choirs and scholas in or out of the Sanctuary - and Jesus clearly did not command or give examples otherwise.)

Women are allowed to sing the propers. I’m a very low contralto (choral tenor) and I sing the propers with the rest of the lower voices (all men). I have received the blessing and encouragement from Fr. Berg, FSSP when he was superior general and visiting, as well as the North American district superior, as well as the former FSSP seminarian chant director and instructor.

That being said, the director of the Diocesan Latin Mass in my home city is adamant that only men may sing the propers. They have two men and only know how to chant the propers in psalm tone.

I also had an incident with a newly ordained priest from the FSSP who came from our Latin Mass community when it came to one of his first Masses. He wanted our schola to sing, except for me because I’m a woman and he was worried that pictures of me singing the propers with the men would end up on the internet and Trads would get up in arms about it and he wouldn’t be able to justify it. Of course, he didn’t initially tell me this. He kept trying to avoid me, refuse to tell me himself he wouldn’t allow me to sing, and wouldn’t give me a reason until I finally got it out of him. He told me that I should accept not being allowed to sing as a penance.

I was later informed by a Music Director that I could have gone to the Diocese with a complaint of discrimination based on sex since there is ample documentation and custom that allows women to sing the chant propers with men, and also that it’s not the priest who is celebrating Mass who gets to decide who may sing or not, but it’s up to the pastor of the parish. I didn’t file a complaint, but it still leaves a sour mark with me.

I also had an incident with a newly ordained priest from the FSSP who came from our Latin Mass community when it came to one of his first Masses. He wanted our schola to sing, except for me because I’m a woman and he was worried that pictures of me singing the propers with the men would end up on the internet and Trads would get up in arms about it and he wouldn’t be able to justify it. Of course, he didn’t initially tell me this. He kept trying to avoid me, refuse to tell me himself he wouldn’t allow me to sing, and wouldn’t give me a reason until I finally got it out of him. He told me that I should accept not being allowed to sing as a penance.

There are a few different problems to unpack here. First, he was newly ordained. Second, there's a clear lack of tact and diplomacy even accounting for the first fact. Third, people shouldn't beat around the bush like that, which I think is different from the second part; he could have directly said this and still lacked tact, as I can easily imagine one saying this directly and still adding the part about penance. Third, while propers are not universally sung, if at all, in other trad communities run by other trad societies of apostolic life, nevertheless, what comes from the FSSP HQ and what happens on the ground is quite another, and you never know what HQ will say when you have a problem.

That being said, the director of the Diocesan Latin Mass in my home city is adamant that only men may sing the propers. They have two men and only know how to chant the propers in psalm tone.

This is where women should be invited to sing the propers, but the pastor should force these guys to go to a Colloquium or to do the Laus in Ecclesia program through Clear Creek, or something, because limiting the propers to psalm tones holds the liturgy and the parish hostage, and that's unacceptable.

Anyway, I find this whole debate to be extremely Anglo-Saxon, if not uniquely American, and it goes hand-in-hand with all sorts of other things that comes off as some sort of cultural anxiety. The French usually have sufficient choirs of men, but it's not absolutely unheard of for women to sing the propers as needed, and frankly, this debate wouldn't make any sense.

In fact, I have a friend from the ICRSP apostolate where I go to Mass. She plays the organ for Vespers on a fairly regular basis, and on Pentecost, she was wearing shorts due to the walking pilgrimage organized in lieu of the full Chartres pilgrimage. Both of those would have caused people to get extremely upset back home, and it would be their loss, because she's pretty good at accompanying the psalms and hymns in the style favored by the French for the Divine Office.

Bruce,

They were written for men and boys' choirs. Boys sound different from girls (and women) and the esprit de corps is, unavoidably, different.

Men and boys' choirs should be assiduously promoted.

Well, no, there's no contradiction insofar as tradition and the "spirit of Vatican II" aren't actually comparable, and I also think that the question is a fair one.

It's also an open question as relevant portions like transferring feasts entirely if the Mass obligation is suppressed on the Epiphany, the Ascension, and Corpus Christi doesn't apply to the EF, wherein the feast is marked on the day, then an external solemnity is celebrated, but the 1983 CIC clearly doesn't take this into account. January 6 doesn't have an office at all otherwise. It's the Epiphany or bust, and then you have the days following it where you repeat the Mass, or the feast of the Holy Family, which I dislike a lot, but it's fixed on that Sunday, so you can't just move it. Corpus Christi does, I suppose, have a replacement, but it's extremely lame to celebrate it in lieu of the feast on the day itself. Ditto for the Ascension.

But this is also a problem of getting stuck in 1962-ville. The way that the minor rogations and the Ascension vigil seamlessly lead into the feast would have led Rome to fix this point years ago, IMHO, if we weren't supposed to use 1962.