[...] In response to
this trend the Sacred Congregation of Rites and the Consilium issued a joint
statement on December 29, 1966 prohibiting profane music in church. When
Consilium spokesman Monsignor Annibale Bugnini was asked at a press conference
what was meant by "profane" music, he said that this referred to such
things as "jazz" Masses and instruments such as the guitar.

This statement, of course, was not heeded.

For some time now certain newspapers and magazines have been providing for
their readers reports and pictures of liturgical ceremonies, especially celebrations of
the eucharist, that are foreign to Catholic worship and quite unbelievable. "Family
eucharistic meals" followed by dinner are celebrated in private homes; there are
Masses with novel and improvised rites, vestments, and texts, sometimes with
music of an altogether profane and worldly character, unworthy of a sacred service.
These travesties of worship, springing from mere private initiative, tend inevitably
to desacralize the liturgy, the purest expression of the worship the Church offers to
God.

Appeal to pastoral renewal as a motive is completely ruled out; renewal
develops in an orderly way, not haphazardly. All the practices in question are at odds
with the letter and spirit of Vatican II's Constitution on the Liturgy and harmful to
the unity and dignity of the people of God.

Pope Paul VI said on 13 October of this year: "Diversity in language and
newness in ritual are, it is true, factors that the desire for reform has introduced into
liturgy. Nothing is to be adopted however that has not been duly approved by
authority of the bishops, fully mindful of their office and obligations, and by this
Apostolic See. Nothing should be allowed that is unworthy of divine worship,
nothing that is obviously profane or unfit to express the inner, sacred power of
prayer. Nothing odd or unusual is allowable, since such things, far from fostering
devotion in the praying community, rather shock and upset it and impede the
proper and rightful cultivation of a devotion faithful to tradition."[DOL 84 no 634]

While deploring the practices described and the attendant publicity, we
urgently invite Ordinaries, both local and religious, to watch over the right application
of the Constitution on the Liturgy. With kindness but firmness they should
dissuade those who, whatever their good intentions, sponsor such exhibitions.
Where these occur, Ordinaries should reprove the abuses, banning any experiment
not authorized and guided by the hierarchy and not conducive to a reform in
keeping with the mind of the Council, so that the noble work of renewal may
develop without deviation and produce those results in the life of Christians that
the Church expects.

We add the reminder that apart from those cases envisioned by liturgical law
and therein precisely defined, celebration of Mass in private homes is unlawful.

[...]

4. Song. There is also an allusion to music that is "profane and worldly." The first
adjective, it seems to me, refers to the type of music; the second, to its style of
performance.

A great deal could be said about this issue, which so much engages public
opinion; but I will be brief.

St. Pius X, the first to deal with the issue of singing as a part of pastoral liturgy,
in his well-known Motu Proprio Tra le sollecitunini (1903) forbade "lascivious" songs,
and instruments that are "raucous and frivolous." It is, we must admit, not always
easy to identify these two qualities. As to the words of songs, the question is easier
because, reflecting as they do the fads and fashions of the moment, sentimental
verses are readily recognized.

But what of melody? Every age has its tastes, preferences, and mode of expression.
Like all art music is a sign revealing the times.

As for musical instruments, St. Pius X was quite explicit in banning those that
are "raucous and frivolous" from places of worship. Clearly he had in mind the
Western culture of the Latin Church. Is such a criterion valid today? Only partly so.
This is the reason that, after recommending use of the traditional instruments, the
Constitution on the Liturgy adds: "Other instruments also may be admitted for use
in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial
authority [i.e., the conference of bishops]. This applies, however, only on condition
that [1] the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, [2] are
in accord with the dignity of the place of worship, and [3] truly contribute to the
uplifting of the faithful" (art. 120).

This is the necessary basis for judging new musical forms. The Declaration
asserts that, at least in some instances, these three conditions have not been respected.
The music it mentions is "profane," thus not worthy of the place of worship;
"worldly," that is, of a style whose performance requires or seems to require movements,
gestures, and attitudes unworthy of a sacred service.

Does that foreclose every further development of today's percussion music for
liturgy? The Declaration does not permit such an inference, but it is not difficult to
perceive that there would have to be a great deal of sacralization before that kind of
music can legitimately cross the church threshold.

[...]

Statement on Masses in Homes and on Music

[The following is the text of a statement issued on February 17, 1967, by the Bishops' Commission on
the Liturgical Apostolate. The joint declaration of the Congregation of Rites and the Postconciliar Liturgical
Commission to which the statement refers was published in L'Osservatore Romano on January 5, 1967,
and dated December 29, 1966.]

The joint declaration concerning unauthorized "family eucharistic banquets" issued recently by the
Congregation of Rites and the Postconciliar Liturgical Commission (Consilium) has been the subject of
misinterpretation. It was not a new decree or new legislation, much less was it a "papal ban" on the use of
contemporary music. The confused reporting of this statement is a reminder that the official texts of such
documents should be examined carefully and calmly.

1. The warning to observe the present liturgical discipline was directed against abuses, not against the
proper celebration of Mass in homes and neighborhood communities with the authorization of the local
bishop.

As the chairman of this Commission pointed out last November, private innovations in the liturgy disrupt
the desired unity and order in the community. They divide rather than unite. They divert us all from true
liturgical progress, because they are directly contrary to the intent of the Council.

2. Diocesan programs for the celebration of Mass on weekdays in private homes or small neighborhood
communities are not affected by the warning against abuses.

For a long time local bishops have permitted Mass outside a church for sufficient reason. They have thus
brought consolation to the sick confined to their homes for long periods. Obviously other serious reasons
will prompt the use of such faculties, in particular, diocesan programs for weekday Masses in homes and
neighborhoods.

The assembly in small communities for Mass should not ordinarily be restricted to one or two families.
The purpose should be to form a small worshiping community in which the genuine sense of community is more readily experienced. In turn this experience can contribute significantly to growth in awareness of the
parish as community, especially when all the faithful participate in the parish Mass on the Lord's Day. The
parish is the basic unit of the total ecclesial community and it is in the parish that the Church exists in
miniature.

3. It is difficult to give an easy answer to questions concerning music worthy of the liturgy. If free from
improper associations, the music of any age can be accommodated into the service of the liturgy. The
character of music "is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the
liturgical action" (Constitution on the Liturgy, art. 112).

We therefore repeat our recommendations of last April, calling for "musical compositions in idioms that
can be sung by the congregation and thus further communal participation:

"Experience has furthermore shown that different groupings of the faithful assembled in worship respond
to different styles of musical expression which help to make the liturgy meaningful for them. Thus the needs
of the faithful of a particular cultural background or of a particular age level may often be met by a music
that can serve as a congenial, liturgically oriented expression of prayer.

"In this connection, when a service of worship is conducted primarily for gatherings of youth of high school
or college age, and not for ordinary parish congregations, the choice of music which is meaningful to persons
of this age level should be considered valid and purposeful, The use of this music presupposes:
a) that the music itself can be said to contain genuine merit;
b) that if instruments other than the organ are employed as accompaniment for the singing, they should
be played in a manner that is suitable for public worship;
c) that the liturgical texts should be respected. The incorporation of incongruous melodies and texts,
adapted from popular ballads, should be avoided."

Finally, both the developing programs of neighborhood Masses and the newer modes of meaningful
music, which are the responsibility of the local bishop, must not be deterred by the regrettable abuses of
some.

Our concern is to satisfy legitimate desires for needed liturgical change. The condemnation of abuse must
never obstruct desirable and necessary programs of liturgical renewal. It must never encourage or give
comfort to a negativism which is foreign to the promptings of the Holy Spirit for change in our day.

A positive and open approach is needed. This means taking advantage of the changes already accomplished
and making them more deeply effective in vital Christian living.

--Bishops' [sic] Commission on the Liturgical Apostolate

I find it amazing how UTTERLY DEVOID these comments are of anything SPIRITUAL

"What I was getting at was the lack of connection between what we do musically and spiritual lives of he people we are called to serve. There is no mention of bringing peace through music to the widow who is in Stage 4 metastatic cancer. There is no reference to the young man who's wife is cheating on him. There is no mention of the HS student who didn't get into the college she wanted to go to. No mention practically of JESUS or the HOLY SPIRIT! That's the part that is scary."