While two organists sit in the pews and the organ sits silent . . .
  • teachermom24
    Posts: 314
    Here, there obviously is no job to start with; and one could even argue that the pre-recorded music is in violation of that regulation (as it's taking the position away from someone who might otherwise be paid), to say nothing of the clear position against recorded music stated above.

    Yes, this is precisely as it seemed to me. My daughter is set to take over for her brother since he is leaving for college mid-August but I am going to make sure this situation (and others) is resolved satisfactorily before she begins (or she won't begin).
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • ...as a general norm...
    There it is! Pretty as you please!
    Another fig leaf!
    The Church can't won't say anything at all without providing a fig leaf for its contravention.
    Forked tongue!
    Fickle and faithless!
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Don't go where you are not wanted.
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,864
    The words of our Saviour,
    And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.
    The rest of Matthew 10 is also worth reading.
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • Noel,

    "not wanted" and "not needed" aren't the same thing.
  • teachermom24
    Posts: 314
    The entire point of regulations like the one you described is to prevent individuals such as your son from occupying a role that deserves pay for free, and therefore shrinking the (already small) pool of jobs in that occupation.

    I was told by our church office:

    it is an issue of one volunteering and then claiming that it had become expected of them and sues the parish or diocese.

    So it has nothing to do with protecting the job or benefiting an employee; it's only to protect the diocese from a lawsuit.
  • I know in Canada that regulations similar to what I described are in place for many industries. It would not have been a stretch to assume the same was in place in your diocese.

    Is there even a precedent of people suing the parish for that?
  • teachermom24
    Posts: 314
    Is there even a precedent of people suing the parish for that?

    No, the whole thing is absurd and nonsensical. My 18 year old daughter is supposed to be assuming the organist position in a couple of weeks but we are insisting on several changes from what her brother experienced before she accepts. In my son's case, he needed the job, otherwise he would have quit years ago. My daughter has another job in line if the organist position isn't acceptable.
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 284
    One possible solution, with stupid numbers for easy math:

    If the organist is paid $100 to play one mass out of four of the weekend, and can’t play the other three as a volunteer, the organist could be paid $25 per mass, for a total of the same, without really volunteering at any.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • That was one of the options we were considering proposing but all is up in the air right now. We have a new priest (a truly good and holy priest--Deo gratias) but the DM is a hold over and it is unknown how this is all going to shake out. With my daughter on the cusp of becoming the organist, I am wanting to make sure the problems we experienced with my son will not be present for my daughter. She is discerning a religious vocation and it is very unlikely that her "organ career" will continue beyond this year anyway.

    I know many parishes, at least here in the South, have beautiful organs that sit silent while recorded "music", banjo players, and all sorts of other things play on. It may happen in our parish.
  • kenstb
    Posts: 362
    Whether her career as a liturgical musician is lifelong or brief, what you must not do is play the organ at a reduced rate from what is appropriate. You don't want to set a precedent that your successor will have to fight against or live with. So under no circumstances should you play 4 masses at $25 per mass. I have seen this stuff before, and it reinforces the idea that professionals need not apply for musical positions in the catholic church.
  • This is so hard to figure out. I had the notion to suggest they just make the organist a volunteer position for the time being. We are in the rural South. I do not know of any Catholic organists within 100 miles of us. This is not a position people are lining up at the door to fulfill. If my daughter doesn't do it, it will be the computer. We thought, to save at least one Mass per weekend from the abuse of recorded music and to get beyond the financial issue, she could volunteer for the 10:00 a.m. Mass.

    I would appreciate y'all's input on this. I am meeting with our new pastor and the DM next Monday. My dd will be away at choir camp but I can represent her well.
  • I am meeting with our new pastor and the DM next Monday. My dd will be away at choir camp but I can represent her well.

    Hang on - this is a discussion about a PAID job, and MOMMY is having it? I dunno about laws in America, but in most countries it would be a privacy law issue for an employer to be speaking to a family member about a potential employment or terms and conditions.
  • This is really what bothers me about this whole business--church ministry has been reduced to laws and regulations that have no connection with the real meaning of service in the Church. If that's all this is about--a paid position disconnected from service in the Church--my daughter will not accept it. (For my son, who spoke for himself on all occasions, it became "just a paid job". He needed the money so just did what he was told.) My daughter has other potential means of income without this. I am not negotiating a contract for her but, because she we will be away at choir camp this week and our DM wants her to begin as organist the Tuesday after she returns, our pastor asked for a meeting to talk about sacred music in our parish and my daughter's potential participation in that. I hope and pray we will have a fruitful discussion about sacred music, that's all. Doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. If it turns out to be a good opportunity for service, my daughter will likely accept it. If it's just a "paid job", she won't.

    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • canned music.

    Canned music is wrong because it eliminates the need to search, find and train an organist, saving the parish $ AND failing to celebrate Holy Mass as it should be.

    Silence is preferable, like waiting through Lent in silence, you are waiting for music.
  • church ministry has been reduced to laws and regulations that have no connection with the real meaning of service in the Church. If that's all this is about

    Sorry, but the entire situation sounds overly convoluted. It really sounds like time for you to back away and let your daughter step forward and decide on her own what she wants to do.

    (got to go, brownies coming out of the oven)
    Thanked by 1teachermom24
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,908
    I was told no recorded music, ever, for any reason.

    So you don't work in an elevator, or at Target, eh?

    IIRC, that flat prohibition was promulgated in the 1956 (-7?) Instruction. Naturally, the US Bishops wiggle-worded it. But they've been wrong before, and will be again....
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,349
    dad, I do not understand your comment. Where, prithee, have "the US Bishops wiggle-worded" anything that you judge to be permissive of recorded music in the liturgy? And why "naturally"?
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,908
    as a general norm.

    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,146
    dad29 is right -- exceptions become the rule, and they introduced an exception here (broadly worded, too, and left to individual discretion) where there didn't need to be one.

    It could be interpreted many ways. For example, "I know that we shouldn't use recorded music as a general norm, but I want to do it here at our parish. I'm not trying to make every other parish do it this way, but our parish is an exception to the general norm (because of reasons), and we will use recorded music whenever it is convenient for us."

    If STTL had said something to the effect of, "Recorded music is not to be used during the sacred liturgy; all sung or instrumentally played portions of the sacred liturgy must be performed by present, live musicians," it would give us musicians a leg to stand on. Instead, the bishops cut us off at the knees by allowing the pastor, DRE, mother-of-the-bride, etc. to say, "Oh, this is just an exception," and then do whatever they please. It's wrong. It's a facsimile or simulation of worship, and shouldn't happen. The bishops allow it to happen *as an exception* when it shouldn't happen at all.
  • Amen, and amen!

    When the bishops really actually do care about something they leave no (as in zero) loopholes or options!
    Ditto 'Rome' or 'the Vatican'.

    (For instance, when a priest or bishop wishes to forbid chant in his church or diocese he does not say 'as a general norm chant should not be sung here.)
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • If STTL had said something to the effect of,

    STTL is nothing but suggestions by the US bishops that was rejected by Rome.

    How can anyone cite it to justify anything?

    If a priest is put up to be named a Monsignor and Rome denies it, does this mean he's a Monsignor? And should be treated as one?

    (brownies were good, especially with milk chocolate frosting)
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,146
    Aw, come on, Frogman! You know it carries some weight, at least "in the trenches," even if it has no juridical authority.

    In any event, feel free to change that sentence slightly to refer to a more authoritative document, or even to posit a newly-composed authoritative document with the same thrust, and I think the point holds up, IMNSHO.

    (Very glad to hear that the brownies were good!)
  • If Rome rejected it, it carries no weight - instead, it becomes an embarrassment to those who attempted to push it through in the first place.

    "Hey, this is how we think our people in the USA should be allowed to do things!"

    Rome: "no"

    It, really carries weight, doesn't it!
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,574
    I am squiriming in my seat waiting for Reverend Robot to go on sale.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,333
    If Rome said no to it, that must have been behind the scenes, because I'm not aware that it was ever officially submitted for approval.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Liam
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,908
    Let's ad arguendam agree it never went to Rome. So what?

    Well, first off, Rome did not DIS-approve. See? And of course, does the parish priest get paid through license of the Bishop, or CDW in Rome? Hmmmmm?

    Saving a lot of time and expense, BCL simply promulgates its own rules. Americanism!! Wave the flag and play the My Little Pony Mass!!!
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    Perhaps better to sing from the Graduale and Make The Mass Great Again
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • Sorry, but the entire situation sounds overly convoluted. It really sounds like time for you to back away and let your daughter step forward and decide on her own what she wants to do.

    Yes, this is basically what our priest told me today--and he did use the word "convoluted" :-) OK, I'm done.
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,333
    Here's a commentary Dr. Mahrt wrote about STTL closer to the time:

    He writes: "Originally it was proposed as binding liturgical law for the United States, which would have required Vatican confirmation, but it was decided not to present it as binding law but only as recommendation, thus avoiding the necessity of submitting it to the Vatican. ...It seems unlikely that the Vatican would have confirmed the present document, and thus they settled for a lesser status. The result is a document with extensive recommendations about the employment of music in the liturgy. It incorporates the views of many without reconciling them: Everyone will find something in the document to like, but the astute will notice that these very things are in conflict with other statements in the same document. Essentially, it states the status quo..."
    Thanked by 2eft94530 Liam
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,084
    Mind you, it's not like the Vatican is particularly interested in receiving such submissions. There's a section of Liturgiam Authenticam was notable for being stillborn - I am not aware of any episcopal conference or order that ever really made a submission it called for (the USCCB did come up with some general principles a bit late in the day, shall we say, but no word about Vatican reaction thereto as best I can recall):

    "108. Sung texts and liturgical hymns have a particular importance and efficacy. Especially on Sunday, the “Day of the Lord”, the singing of the faithful gathered for the celebration of Holy Mass, no less than the prayers, the readings and the homily, express in an authentic way the message of the Liturgy while fostering a sense of common faith and communion in charity.[78] If they are used widely by the faithful, they should remain relatively fixed so that confusion among the people may be avoided. Within five years from the publication of this Instruction, the Conferences of Bishops, necessarily in collaboration with the national and diocesan Commissions and with other experts, shall provide for the publication of a directory or repertory of texts intended for liturgical singing. This document shall be transmitted for the necessary recognitio to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments."
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • The first half of (108) was done, within the five years, by the Music Commission of the CCCB. There is a list of "chants" (ie hymns) assigned to each Sunday and Solemnity. Our CBW III is, of course, the official Episcopally produced and approved hymnal. (Until Lent 2020 when they new one starts, apparently.)

    Some places use the Music Suggestions, including one place where I sing. Although I know nowhere that treats them as norms, and probably they are not meant as norms. I am certain that these were not submitted for recognitio, but pretty sure the impetus for publishing them came from Liturgiam Authenticam. I am glad the are not liturgical law: their Pastoral Notes are painful to read.

    Thanked by 1Liam
  • toddevoss
    Posts: 128
    As MJ Osborn said: "It seems that this priest's notion of music at mass is the silly idea that it has to be played by someone paid to play it, that he and the people cannot otherwise sing it." I agree. A few weeks ago, our wonderful organist was traveling. So at Sunday mass, our wonderful priest (who loves a sung liturgy) said: " Our organist is traveling but we're going to sing the liturgy - A capella! I know we can do it!" (fortunately he is a good singer and the cantor is well -trained - no arm waving and she steps back from the microphone as a general matter when the people are singing ). One benefit (although I love our organist) - the congregation can more clearly hear itself sing. And we sang! It sounded great. So if you can't "afford an organist" , get a decent non-amplified (except as judiciously used at points) cantor and a priest who is willing to sing (he doesn't have to sing "well" although it would help) and you have music at the mass. If you do that over and over, I predict you will hear consistently edifying (and perhaps even touching glorious) music. I believe this is the Eastern Orthodox way (more often than not anyway).