Madorganist,

In the documents of Vatican II and related places, we are told that non-Catholics can't fulfill a liturgical ministry. Full stop. I didn't know this prohibition existed when, in my much younger days, I did stupid things like have non-Catholics serve as cantors at school Masses.

I believe that the prohibition dates from well before the Council.

To pre-empt what someone else is going to write: the American bishops asked for (and obtained, if I recall) permission to allow women to sing in choirs in spite of the prohibition back in the dusty days when Popes still wrote and said Catholic things (i.e., some time before 2013).

For EF Masses, it's well established that a true liturgical choir substitutes for a choir of clerics and must be all male.

Tra le sollecitudini (1903):

13. ...Singers in church have a real liturgical office, and that therefore women, being incapable of exercising such office, cannot be admitted to form part of the choir....

14. Finally, only men of known piety and probity of life are to be admitted to form part of the choir of a church, and these men should by their modest and devout bearing during the liturgical functions show that they are worthy of the holy office they exercise. It will also be fitting that singers while singing in church wear the ecclesiastical habit and surplice, and that they be hidden behind gratings when the choir is excessively open to the public gaze.

Mixed or all-female choirs are tolerated but constitute a "choir of the faithful," not a liturgical choir or schola cantorum.

De musica sacra et sacra liturgia (1958):

99. It is highly desirable that a choir or schola cantorum be established in all cathedral churches, in parish churches, and all other churches of importance....

100. Wherever such a choir cannot be organized, a choir of the faithful, either mixed or consisting only of women or girls, can be permitted. But such a choir should take its place outside the sanctuary or Communion rail....

Now that I re-read the pertinent legislation, the only options would seem to be either a choir consisting of "only men of known piety and probity of life" or else a "choir of the faithful," either of which would obviously exclude anyone not numbered among the faithful.

According to more recent legislation, non-Catholic Christians may be allowed to read scripture or the petitions of the universal prayer in special situations approved by the bishop.

Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism (1993):

133. ...On exceptional occasions and for a just cause, the Bishop of the diocese may permit a member of another Church or ecclesial Community to take on the task of reader.

No mention is made, however, of non-Christians fulfilling liturgical roles under any circumstances.

Chonak,

I'll have to go looking, which I can't do just at the moment, but I shall see what I can find.

prohibition dates from well before the Council

The earliest Church document against employing non-catholic musicians I know of is a writ from the Holy Office some time in 17th century. It was cited by Latin Mass Magazine years ago. I have given to somebody this issue, and it is not online. If somebody subscribes to that journal one could find it. So far as I remember, the inquisitors argued that such employment would be against both divine law and reason.

I do find it amusing that Popes can write about the ideal Liturgical choir, containing all these Catholic men "of known piety and probity of life", And then create a Liturgy...

Two different Popes, and different ghostwriters, too.

I do wonder where the enforcement of them would leave ... the choirs ...

This means a confession that catholics by definition do not have among them competent and willing singers to ensure quality singing in their divine services, so the 'outsourcing' is the only possibility. Not even in large cities?

This entire subject seems to me a case of straining at gnats. In my place, we now have some formerly Protestant singers who became Catholic after working with us. So in practice, it is something of a conversion tool.

How many churches are actually following the path of Catholic Men (and Boys?) ...

How many churches are actually following any Catholic path?

Some of those prohibitions against non-Catholics date from a time when Protestantism was also a political movement opposed to Catholicism. Now the choice may be between the Protestant pagan in the choir or the Catholic one.

While I find the documents Chonak requested that I produce (a good request, but one I haven't managed to fulfill yet) let me pursue another avenue of answer to this.

Clericals (cassock and surplice) are supposed to be worn by clerics. At one point, choirs were composed (in large part) of those who had received minor orders, that is, they were composed of at least one grade of cleric.

Women can't be clerics, so a natural, logical prohibition grew up against women in choirs. Since women can't be clerics, they shouldn't wear clericals.

Protestants have all sorts of fancy dress for their own choirs (which is slightly ironic, given that Olly Cromwell and company decried all those frills and ceremony as Papist) but those same Protestants are incapable, if I understand correctly, of participating in Mass, never mind taking a ministerial function within the sacred rites. Therefore, they should not sing in our choirs, nor wear clericals.

When I was a boy, all the Catholics who loved good music and had the instrument and the training to contribute to it did their "duty" at St. Joseph's Cathedral and then came down the street to sing music which was more Catholic than what they had endured previously. Why would Protestants want to be in clericals, or sing in a Catholic parish choir?

My wife, a Catholic, volunteered to join the choir in a Russian Othodox Cathedral (the London, Moscow Patriarchate one). After a fair bit of chewing it over, they decided not to have her as 'it would give a confusing signal' to have a choir member not eligible to receive the Eucharist.

I dont' doubt it, but...

Madorganist -
Yes, we do have women in the choir wearing cassock and surplice at Walsingham.
This is something that has been quite ordinary in the Anglican tradition.
Incidentally, the choir cassocks at Walsingham are lady blue.

The Sistine Choir is composed mostly of laymen, especially young boys. If you're familiar with the 1940 Easter Mass narrated by Fulton Sheen, it shows a besurpliced choir of men and boys singing from a loft (or some location apart from the sanctuary). We can't draw any conclusions about how common that vesture might have been in American parish churches at the time, but it's worth noting that it was selected to appear in a production presumably intended as a sort of model for how to follow Solemn High Mass.

I would agree that non-uniform use of cassock and surplice by individual singers is odd.

Stimson,

You're working on the assumption (correctly, mind) that those performing a clerical function in choir should dress like it.

How can non-Catholics dress in clericals?

Chris,

The Protestants are ringers. I guess that makes them "simoniacal mercenary straw clericals", or some designation of that sort.

Not the former (unfortunately!) but the latter. Having trained the youth of my old parish in the joys of change ringing, I know how lively a bunch they can be. No, my group is unfortunately outside the living Faith - these are "dead ringers".

And accordingly, where would the placement of simoniacal and mercenary fall in that formulation?

Hey .. I have seen ..
.. woven tapestry altar cloths used as makeshift curtains
.. antependiums used as dormats to easter caves
.. altar server vestments used as angel costumes

So why not?

PaxMelodious, I see no reason why the definition of Protestant should be any different in this context than in any other context: a member of church community which separated from the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century or which has roots in one of those communities.

I'm a little surprised that the term 'communicatio in sacris' hasn't surfaced yet in this discussion (unless I missed it).

It is not only not forbidden, it is in itself good that a non-Catholic should enter a Catholic Church to assist at the Mass or the divine office.

The welcome scenario of a non-Catholic coming into one of our churches to attend Mass or the Divine Office is not what is being debated in this thread so far as I can tell. This is about whether having non-Catholic Christians and even non-Christians singing in our choirs and dressing in clerical garb despite their not believing what the Church believes. There's something materially dishonest about having a Protestant, however musically skilled, in a Catholic choir singing ...et unam, sanctam, catholicam, et apostolicam ecclesiam... or a Jew singing "...et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum..." It is all the more so if they're in cassock and surplice.

stulte's objections are of considerable objective and didactic weight, and should not be lightly dismissed.

I think, though, that allowing non-believers into our choirs does more 'for' them than 'against' us, providing that they are very respectful and innocent of any ill will towards our faith.

Converts have come of such service; and we have grown in mercy, love, and evangelism from such service. Serving in the sanctuary would be another matter altogether, but allowing their voices to resound with those of believers can only be a positive development.

Further, it isn't that every formally Catholic person is a thorough-going and orthodox believer. Nor are such formal Catholics free from the very sins which may or may not be imputable to non-Catholics: adultery, sex of any kind by anyone of any orientation outside or inside of wed-lock that isn't open to pro-creation, plus the catalogue of 'every day sins', and much else. There are many non-Catholics who may be more worthy than some Catholics. Too, perhaps admitting a non-Catholic into our choir brings him or her closer to God, and glorifies God more, than the Catholic who seldom goes to mass? - And, to reference an ancient settlement with un-worthy ministry, the 'ministry' and/or its effects may be quite valid regardless of the moral and confessional status of the 'minister'.

Carrying these objections to logical extremes, we should employ only Catholic architects, only Catholic sextons, only Catholic organ builders (heaven forbid!), and on and on and on. One of the most profound sacred spaces in Houston is St Basil's Chapel at UST, which was built by the great XXth century American architect, Phillip Johnson, who was an avowed atheist - an atheist who yet was a poet of architecture who understood sacral space. We should let God use who he wishes and who he sends to accomplish what he wishes in their lives and ours. I am not threatened by them - nor is my faith bothered by them.

Finally - if we are to admit worthy non-Catholics into certain liturgical ministries in our churches, we should want them to submit to being vested, and should not want the liturgy to be the time for their non-vested state to be a red flag that says 'THIS PERSON IS NOT CATHOLIC'. If, as I said in another above comment, we can't conscientiously allow our guests to be vested, then we should not ask them to sing with us at all. That much would be honest and blameless. The vesture goes with the ministry, and the ministry with the vesture.

If it's any consolation, Stutle, the gentlemen will be singing for the Feast of St. Ignatius, which is only third class, so it won't feature a Credo. ;)

to be a red flag

...or a yellow 6-pointed star....

In a 6-person Chant-only choir of my acquaintance, three of the singers were women. Of those three, one was the 'franchise voice.' Excellent singer, knew how to blend with the others and did so unfailingly, leading them gently. The choir was in a loft, not vested. She was a Jewess, not practicing. We thought that having her there was good for her and we KNEW it was good for us.

It seems that there are two separate issues that are being conflated into a single discussion.

I believe very strongly that part of our responsibility is to draw souls to Christ through the medium of our music... and that certainly includes non-Catholics. I would be totally fine allowing someone to sing in the choir loft, knowing that they are non-Catholic - allowing them space to hopefully develop the realization of the one, true Faith while seeing the example of the Liturgy and our participation therein.

That is not the same question as vesting them in cassock and surplice (as differentiated from choir robes), putting them in the sanctuary, and implicitly acknowledging that they can serve in an official liturgical capacity.

Several years ago, our pastor received a letter from a Catholic couple who had been traveling with two other Protestant couples. They were returning home to Florida from an event in Chicago, and happened to stop by our parish during one of the Holy Week ceremonies. According to the letter, the couples discussed what they had seen most of the way home... (I'm under the impression that none of them were familiar with the Extraordinary Form in any context - part of the reason they had stopped by was because of curiosity).

In the course of their conversation, one of the Protestant men exclaimed - "For the first time, I see Catholicism as a different religion than mine."

I applaud the sentiment that has us share our Faith with the unbeliever - that is true ecumenism - to expose those without the Faith to the teachings of the Church. But the gentleman's statement above "for the first time..." strikes at the crux of the matter. Our religion is NOT THE SAME as the other religions. Isn't the first step along the path to Truth to recognize that Catholicism is fundamentally different? Why, then, would we be so casual and act as if a Protestant member of our choir is fully in communion with the Church, able to serve in a liturgical capacity?

In the early days of Christianity, catechumens had to leave the Mass before the Credo. They didn't "believe" until they were baptized. They had no part in the Offertory or in the Canon of the Mass.

Certainly we live in a different time - I'm not suggesting that we kick catechumens out of Mass. But I think it is a mistake to equate ecumenism - true ecumenism - with ameliorating the principles of our Faith so that someone simply feels more a part of who we are without actually changing anything on their end.

What next? Encouraging them to receive Communion?

Is it true Charity to point out the Truth? or simply to make one feel accepted regardless of truth?

Sounds like its time to marshal forces and replace uber liberal school principals and music teachers with classical trained and educated principals and music teachers.

Start teaching children traditional sacred music and how to sing anatomically correctly.

Not having enough well trained and educated Catholic adults in choirs, is a result of years of uber liberals teaching "On Eagle's Wings," "Hear Am I," etc. and other sacro pop garbage.

Otherwise, there wont be enough Catholics in any choirs; robed or not.

I had to sing "On Eagle's Wings" for a funeral yesterday and all I could think about was "Yoo-hoo." Thank you all for that.

And I will strafe your house with F-15s,
Blow you into kingdom come.
Make you to shine like the sun,
and blast your butt into the land beyond...

I cleaned that one up a bit over the usual.

Yeah, I played it for a funeral earlier in the week. My cantor said, "where are they hearing all this awful music? We don't sing it." I hate it, but am not willing to argue over the body of a deceased relative. However, it will not be heard on Sunday.

Actually ghmus7, the anathema is against those who say the liturgy should be celebrated only in the vernacular. In the discussions at Trent the majority thought that vernacular would be inopportune at that time, not for all time. So VII did not reject the view of Trent, merely said that vernacular was no longer inopportune, and of course emphasised the continuing primacy of Latin (for the Latin patriarchate).

{Just imagine: an Anglican ordinariate musician fundamentally opposed to Mass in the vernacular....}


Hawkins,

The message that anathema has been cast on those who say that the worship of the Church may be only in the vernacular apparently excommunicated Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who claims in his book that there is no justification for retaining Latin, since (his argument) the addressee needs to understand what is being said to him......

I wonder, therefore (and yes, this is a serious question) if the entire reform can, should, or must be called into question?