Order of precedence in liturgical documents?
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    I have long taken it to be a convention in liturgical documents that various options are listed in order of precedence. Looking at the current GIRM, we see that the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, the Preface, Eucharistic Prayer, Sanctus, Agnus Dei and every part of the Lord's Prayer from the invitation to the embolism are all "sung or said" and never "said or sung" (as sometimes appears in "Sing to the Lord," which is not one of the Church's liturgical documents). Does this not suggest that the preference is for these parts to be sung? The Gloria and the Credo as "intoned by the priest or, if appropriate, by a cantor or by the choir." Does this not suggest that it is preferable that the presider sing these parts? Eucharistic Prayer I is the Roman Canon which "may always be used," whereas the other options have more specific applications. The Penitential Rite ranges from the fullest treatment (I confess, followed by the Kyrie) to the shortest (Rite C, no Kyrie) and presumably least desirable. Likewise, are not the four options for singing the Entrance (as well as the Offertory and Communion) listed in order of relevance to a particular celebration, with the appropriateness of each successive option in inverse proportion to its difficulty? Are we not to assume that only if none of these four options is possible that the antiphon from the Missal should be read, and even then that preference is given to the participation of the faithful?

    One could come up with several other examples from the liturgical documents that suggest this order of precedence. But, is there any offical docment that states this explicitly? That is the question that was posed to me recently. Other than that more descriptive documents support each of the suggested orders of precedence, I do not know of any that explains the ordering of options in documents like the GIRM. I had hoped the original Latin might provide some evidence in its use of "vel" in some places to mean "or perhaps" as opposed to "aut" which would simply mean "or." But then I discovered places in which "sive" ("or") is used in conjunction with "vel." Does that mean the "perhaps" is linked grammatically to the "sive" as well? My Latin is not so fluent that I could make that argument.

    Anyone have any sources that support this argument?
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • francis
    Posts: 10,819
    Great question. To what are we bound? What happens when American church documents contradict what comes from Rome? Its all a great mystery for many and it has been years of study and reading to get through the maze of confusion. (which seems never to have an end!)
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    Well, you're entering into the realm of "how to read a curial document."

    As I've heard it explained by several canon lawyers and those familiar with interpretation of these types of documents, there's prescriptive language ("must" and "should" for example) and permissive language ("may" or "can").

    There are some who are more "strict constructionist" in these areas. They will assert that the order of preference is the order set forth from first to last. Others (more progressive types, IMO) will say that any choice is equal among all of them. For example, read the GIRM at paragraph 48 it spells out the four options for the Entrance Chant. No. 1 is from the Missal or Gradual; no. 4 is a "suitable liturgical song similarly approved . . ." This is the fourth option, but invariably the one that most churched go for. In short, I think they list these things in order of preference from most to least preferred.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,819
    David:

    I figured (and hoped) you would be soon to post on this one.

    Most, if not all, of us are caught in the balance somewhere between the theoretical mandate and the practical reality.

    Since we are under the jurisdiction of the American Catholic Bishops, I use SttL to the advantage of choosing the best suited music for our liturgies. This is best accomplished utilizing the guidelines known as "the three judgments: one evaluation" (Paragraphs 126-135). Granted, although these paragraphs can also empower the abuser, we as trained and experienced "pastoral musicians" can certainly use it to justify the selection and inclusion of the most noble of all RC musical repertoire in the liturgy.

    While it is sad that the role of judge is given out freely to anyone who calls themself a pastor, musician, liturgist or planner without qualification, we should certainly use this authority to move our liturgies toward the musical ideal.

    There is a lot of music and text that falls outside the boundaries of acceptable possibilities that can easily be eliminated with the phrases in this document. As professional church musicians, we are almost automatically given the exclusive role to excersize the right of musical judgment. And while it makes clear that musical style is not a part of that judgment, this part of SttL gives us a lot of power to accept or reject musics for the liturgy.


    ===== The Three Judgments: One Evaluation 126. In judging the appropriateness of music for the Liturgy, one will examine its liturgical, pastoral, and musical qualities. Ultimately, however, these three judgments are but aspects of one evaluation, which answers the question: “Is this particular piece of music appropriate for this use in the particular Liturgy?” All three judgments must be considered together, and no individual judgment can be applied in isolation from the other two. This evaluation requires cooperation, consultation, collaboration, and mutual respect among those who are skilled in any of the three judgments, be they pastors, musicians, liturgists, or planners.

    The Liturgical Judgment 127. The question asked by this judgment may be stated as follows: Is this composition capable of meeting the structural and textual requirements set forth by the liturgical books for this particular rite?

    128. Structural considerations depend on the demands of the rite itself to guide the choice of parts to be sung, taking into account the principle of progressive solemnity (see nos. 110ff. in this document). A certain balance among the various elements of the Liturgy should be sought, so that less important elements do not overshadow more important ones. Textual elements include the ability of a musical setting to support the liturgical text and to convey meaning faithful to the teaching of the Church.

    129. A brief introduction to the aspects of music and the various liturgical rites is provided below in nos. 137ff. Pastoral musicians should develop a working familiarity with the requirements of each rite through a study of the liturgical books themselves.

    The Pastoral Judgment

    130. The pastoral judgment takes into consideration the actual community gathered to celebrate in a particular place at a particular time. Does a musical composition promote the sanctification of the members of the liturgical assembly by drawing them closer to the holy mysteries being celebrated? Does it strengthen their formation in faith by opening their hearts to the mystery being celebrated on this occasion or in this season? Is it capable of expressing the faith that God has planted in their hearts and summoned them to celebrate?

    131. In the dioceses of the United States of America today, liturgical assemblies are composed of people of many different nations. Such peoples often “have their own musical tradition, and this plays a great part in their religious and social life. For this reason their music should be held in proper esteem and a suitable place is to be given to it, not only in forming their religious sense but also in adapting worship to their native genius. . . .”103

    132. Other factors—such as the age, culture, language, and education of a given liturgical assembly—must also be considered. Particular musical forms and the choice of individual compositions for congregational participation will often depend on those ways in which a particular group finds it easiest to join their hearts and minds to the liturgical action. Similarly, the musical experience of a given liturgical assembly is to be carefully considered, lest forms of musical expression that are alien to their way of worshiping be introduced precipitously. On the other hand, one should never underestimate the ability of persons of all ages, cultures, languages, and levels of education to learn something new and to understand things that are properly and thoroughly introduced. 103 SC, no. 119.

    133. The pastoral question, finally, is always the same: Will this composition draw this particular people closer to the mystery of Christ, which is at the heart of this liturgical celebration?

    The Musical Judgment

    134. The musical judgment asks whether this composition has the necessary aesthetic qualities that can bear the weight of the mysteries celebrated in the Liturgy. It asks the question: Is this composition technically, aesthetically, and expressively worthy?

    135. This judgment requires musical competence. Only artistically sound music will be effective and endure over time. To admit to the Liturgy the cheap, the trite, or the musical cliché often found in secular popular songs is to cheapen the Liturgy, to expose it to ridicule, and to invite failure.

    136. Sufficiency of artistic expression, however, is not the same as musical style, for “the Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her own. She has admitted styles from every period, in keeping with the natural characteristics and conditions of peoples and the needs of the various rites.”104 Thus, in recent times, the Church has consistently recognized and freely welcomed the use of various styles of music as an aid to liturgical worship.
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    This talk about three judgements is all fine and good. But specifically, how do we execute the liturgical judgement if we do not understand the "requirements set forth by the liturgical books." I'm hoping someone might have some thoughts on the original question, viz "Is there support in the documents for a reading of options in order of precedence?" What we ultimately choose to do in the liturgy, as a result of pastoral/musical judgements or otherwise, is something of another issue.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    At least some liturgical "establishment" commentators such as Edward Foley treat the order of options as relevant. In this book, he and his co-authors compare the order of options in certain passages of the Latin IGMR and in the approved US version, and point out where changes have been made.


    A Commentary on the General Instruction of the Roman Missal: Developed Under the Auspices of the Catholic Academy of Liturgy and Cosponsored by the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions
    By Edward Foley, Nathan Mitchell, Joanne M. Pierce, Donald W. (FRW) Trautman

    Published by Liturgical Press, 2008


    Portions of the book are on-line through Google Books.

    If the book's good enough for Bp. Trautman, who wrote the foreword, you can certainly apply its principles in confidence.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    Francis,

    It's interesting (and fun!) to note that folks watch for certain other regulars to weigh in on certain topics!

    I'd like to disabuse you of the notion that we're under the "jurisdiction" of the American bishops and bound to the USCCB's "documents," especially when many of their "documents" contain easily identified contradictions or at the least equivocations as against their curial counterparts. To be sure, the USCCB is the "territorial authority" in these matters, but as has been pointed out elsewhere, SttL is merely guidelines, and as it lacks recognitio it literally carries no weight whatsoever, the value of much of what was included in it notwithstanding. I refer you to a paragraph in Redemptionis sacramentum which clearly states (in so many words) that any liturgical norms issued by a territorial authority must receive recognitio from the Holy See. Failure to do so essentially renders the document invalid.

    As to Incantu's original question, once again I suggest that this level of interpretation is steeped in subtleties. While I'm familiar with Edward Foley, Capuchin's views on interpretation of documents, I'd be quick to point out that at a breakout session he presented on the document Musicam sacram during the NPM national convention in Indianapolis, IN (which quite ironically opened the day after the MP Summorum pontificum was issued), his prejudices regarding this and other curial documents that favor the application and use of the musical traditions over clever novelty were clearly on display.

    Given H.E. Bishop Trautman's behavior at the recent annual synod, I would shrink away from any work on matters of liturgy and music bearing a forward by him.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • francis
    Posts: 10,819
    DA:

    What is the particular paragraph in RS that you mentioned? I would like to carry that one around in my wallet.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    Maybe my tongue was planted a bit too deeply in my cheek when I wrote above, David, but here's my logic:

    Any people who should quibble with incantu over music policies are likelier than not to follow "liturgical establishment" views; so why not cite the authorities those people like (Fr. Foley, Bp. Trautman)? Sure, I'd put more weight on the views of a moderate such as Fr. Denis Smolarski or a continuity-minded interpreter such as Bp. Peter Elliott. But if you can get support on a point from people who aren't your philosophical soulmates, why not?

    Besides, I do think Foley and co. are correct in considering the order of options relevant. They aren't the only people who ever cite the principle,
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    francis: the particular paragraph

    www.vatican.va
    English
    Roman Curia
    Congregations
    Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
    scroll down

    2004-apr-23 Redemptionis Sacramentum
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

    [28.] All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force.[65]

    footnote65:
    Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 838 § 3; S. Congregation of Rites, Instruction Inter Oecumenici, 26 September 1964, n. 31: AAS 56 (1964) p. 883; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, nn. 79-80: AAS 93 (2001) pp. 711-713.
Add a Comment