MS is an old document not applicable to the current approved rite. Not that everything in it is bad, it isn't. It is just out of date and superseded by more recent legislation. Now I know, if it says what some WANT to hear, they will drag it out of the dust bin and treat it as gospel. It isn't.

GIRM, etc. The authority was given to the conferences of bishops. It doesn't reside in Rome so much at a practical level. The bishops propose legislation and Rome approves it. And so it did. And I follow it.

CharlesW - yes, authority has been given to the bishops, but they don't exercise it well, if at all. The Offices of the Conferences may produce things, but without much evidence of bishops exercising oversight. For England&Wales we have this, which diverges in places wildly from GIRM, and appears to assume hymns.

Yes, there is no silver bullet in these matters.

And I am rather sure at this point that one should be careful asking for one now. (That is, asking for universal legislation to triage and harmonize the divers official pieces of legislation that touch on sacred music for the past 60 years).

At Walsingham every last thing is sung at the eleven fifteen high mass and on solemnities. We have a nine-thirty 'sung masse' at which almost everything is sung. At our 'low masses' sursum corda and the preface will often be sung, as will be the collects, etc., depending on the celebrant. Even all three readings are sung at every solemnity's high mass.

Since GIRM and Bishops' statements often contradict each other AND Roman documents, no reason that the term "free-for-all" shouldn't be applied.

(Side note: there is a reason that in the EF the priest's singing assignments tend to be simple compared to those of the choir.....)

It is too convenient to dismiss Musicam sacram as out-of-date and irrelevant. Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but as an ecclesial document, the only thing it would be superseded by would be the GIRM, which would mean that anything not contradicted by the GIRM (is there anything?) would still be valid. Yes, we have to adapt it to the current Mass, and we all know that strictly following those guidelines is unrealistic in many places (any sung entrance chant followed by a recited Greeting would be invalid, and musicians just can't control that aspect). Still, those tiered priorities are an excellent guide to what should be sung by the celebrant/congregation/choir. In a dream scenario in which I were responsible for organizing the music at a start-up parish with a singing priest and a good schola, I'd stick very close to these guidelines.

Hawkins,

No longer appropriate, or no longer observed as if it had any meaning?

Glad to say that at my Parish for the noon mass, everything is sung (including the Gospel) except the responses to the first two readings. We have a priest who loves sung liturgy.

...accordiing to the judgment of...

'...competent territorial authority'. Is there not a certain oxymoroninity in the coupling of 'competent' and 'territorial authority'? Particularly in matters of liturgical music?

Juridical competence -- i.e., the guy actually in charge. No doublespeak at all - technical precision.

To answer the original post - we adhere to the principles of sung liturgy at most weekend and holy day masses at our cathedral (with the exception of one priest who has had medical difficulties with his vocal cords). The notable exception is singing the prayers of the faithful, which we haven't done much.

Jared makes a good point that it can still be a guiding document, even if no longer legislatively binding. Hermeneutic of continuity.

And it breaks down rather simply into:
1. Order
2. Ordinary
3. Proper

As in Bishop Olmsted’s excellent “Singing the Mass”
https://adoremus.org/2012/05/15/Singing-the-Mass/

Many places (you know the type) are inclined to swap 1 and 2 and outright ignore 3. From the loft we really only have control over 2 and 3, unfortunately. I attended a Mass recently with a schola singing a hymn for procession and introit as the priest incensed the altar ... only to be followed by seven minutes of improvised introductory remarks casually slipping into a spoken “In the name of the Father...” The sacred momentum was lost the moment the priest’s gaze left the Missal and turned inward on his own thoughts.

MS was produced by the Consilium, so it is unsurprising that it expresses the principles which govern the OF. The problematic part is citing the paragraphs which had the force of liturgical law 28-36, these have either been carried forward into GIRM, or superseded. However we can note that

MS28. ... These degrees are so arranged that the first may be used even by itself, but the second and third, wholly or partially, may never be used without the first. In this way the faithful will be continually led towards an ever greater participation in the singing.

is followed by

36. There is no reason why some of the Proper or Ordinary should not be sung in said Masses. ...

So apparently we can sing what we like IF the celebrant does NOT sing the dialogues, the rules in MS28 only apply if he does sing!

You know, I am tired of fighting it. I do what I can in my little corner and the rest can take care of themselves. I do suspect that not much will change for any number of years.

Francis, I don't think it will die out. Trad dreams to the contrary, I see no signs the current Roman Rite is going anywhere. It is the mainstream and likely to stay so. I am fortunate to have worked for good priests who wanted good, traditional music. All are not so fortunate.

We (The Cathedral of St. Mary, Miami, FL) sing everything on Sundays except the 2 readings, the Gospel, the Creed, and Universal Prayer, although we did sing the Creed during the year of a synod from 2012 to 2013, and the Universal Prayer is sung only at Pontifical Masses. Everything we sing is done according to its proper, hierarchical form. Our rector sings recto tono, but our parochial vicar, priest in residence, and our Archbishop sing the official formulas with about 85% accuracy. Our entrance procession consists of a hymn followed by the SEP introit. For communion we use the SEP communio, followed by a hymn or motet, and a seasonal Marian antiphon as a post-communion meditation. This applies to our principal Mass in English (10am) and to Pontifical Masses. Pontifical Masses are usually multi-lingual events (English, Spanish and Haitian Kreyol), so we try to incorporate the Latin ordinary from Jubilate Deo and Latin reading acclamations, so all the choirs and the faithful may sing together. Our Sunday Mass in Spanish (12pm) is very similar except no propers (only during Advent and Lent) or sung reading acclamations, yet. Our early Mass in Kreyol (8am) is similar to the Spanish Mass, but the priest uses the formulas for his language. Their mass ordinary tends to be rather long, and they have not abandoned the "peace song", yet. We are always striving to learn and improve, but we are definitely playing the long game.

MS came as an Instruction without a Missal. One can say this Instruction only applied to the 1962 Missal, but that doesn't make sense because those at the highest levels knew a reform was coming. This was the bridge between Vatican II (1965) and the Missal of Paul VI (1970). When the new Missal came out, it came with its own General Instruction. It's pretty general whereas MS is more specific. Where there is commonality there is no issue. Are there areas of conflicting directions? I honestly don't recall, but anyone feel free to post examples. I think you need both to point out the development of thought in the mind of the Church. I will never abandon Tra Le Sollecitudini or other pre-Vatican II documents and I think their guiding principles and most directives are applicable today. Likewise, everything MS and the GIRM instruct us to do, if it's a legitimate option, can be done well if the priest and music director have common sense, good communication, a real knowledge of the mind of the Church, and the choir and congregation know their function in the hierarchy. Great topic.

.

The problem isn't with what's in the mainstream. The problem is the shrinking size of the mainstream itself. The TLM isn't the Mass of the future merely because it's hard-identity Catholicism and a wonderful teaching tool all in one. Rather, the Ordo of Paul VI is destined to extinction because the number of priests generated by parishes which are always looking for the novel is vanishingly small, and the number generated in TLM communities is, or soon will be, a veritable flood by comparison.

I think the Novus Ordo is destined for revision, not extinction. TLM people are somewhat inbred and judge all others on their perceptions, which are often not representative of the majority. It is kind of a "we are the true believers and the others will eventually come around to us" mindset. Probably not. I go to NO parishes and I see good people who are devout and who are not looking to return to the TLM. There is nothing really novel in the NO other than some priests who want to do their own thing. Properly done with Eucharistic Prayer I, it is not that different from the TLM except in minor externals. In my own area, Catholic parishes are growing and we have seminarians.

Creolization is a process giving rise to many more than a single language. Besides Kréol, Kreyòl, Kreyol, Krio and Kriol, the very long list of creole languages includes Gullah, Tok Pisin &c…

Let me have the facts and you can take the people - please! I would agree there are exceptions in every group. But I think the major difference between the antics of Henry VIII and the current situation, is the NO is the result of actions resulting from a church council and a pope's decrees. Not the actions of a lustful and self-serving English monarch.

I don't think the majority of bishops in this country intended to undermine the church and trample sacred rites, although those rites had become empty rituals seriously needing reform. We have a living, breathing church not a dusty museum. It can get a bit off course but means well and tries to do good.

We all know the increase in evil in the world came from doing away with the maniple. Even the weather has been weird since then.

I don't think the majority of bishops in this country intended to undermine the church and trample sacred rites, although those rites had become empty rituals seriously needing reform. We have a living, breathing church not a dusty museum. It can get a bit off course but means well and tries to do good.

Oh Charles, there you go again with the sweeping generalities about the "wishful-thinking trads". I know you are tired of fighting these battles, but others of us on here are young-ish and quite new to the fight to restore orthodoxy where it can be found. I have found your commentary to be dismissive of the opinions of those kinds of people in a sort of self-assured way that is, frankly, off-putting.. I have spent my entire late teens, early twenties and now most of my thirties fighting the liturgical battles in the Ordinary Form, and not just as a hobby or as some sort of philosophical exercise, but as a way to provide food, shelter, and support for my family. But I realized more and more that musical ignorance and/or ugliness/banality wasn't the problem; the problem was that my high-falootin' music (the kind taught by the church and advocated by this CMAA organization) wasn't in-sync with the practices of most clergy, liturgies, and churches, most of which were ugly and banal. And there isn't a darn thing a lay guy with a music degree can do to fix the spiritual and intellectual head of a modernist-leaning cleric.

So the CMAA gives many of us great tools...to be used in practically very few places. So what happens to a person who has been given a great gift and can't use it? He either gives up the practice OR he goes somewhere where the gift is appreciated and where we can support our families. Many of us who frequent this site are former 'Reform of the Reform' folks who simply had no real valuable place in which to use our gifts, skills, and interests. To talk dismissively of more traditional-minded people is absurd to me. I get that we all know some traditional-minded people who are crabby constantly. We get it. But I dare you to come to my parish and find too many of those people. You stereotype a whole movement of people based on what appears to be way too few case-studies. Meanwhile, when other people come on here and say what even secular polls say - that only 25% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence - and when we point out that the loss of reverence because of the loss of reverent rites just might have something to do with that, we get laughed (but usually dismissed) out.

With all the issues in the Church, I don't know that making another dismissive maniple joke is funny...or appropriate.

I find it funny how some Trads want to restore orthodoxy with a rite that is 500-years-old. That is hardly orthodox but a created rite from another age. It was the NO of its day.

I think I may be fortunate in that I have not had to deal with craziness and silliness from wacky priests. My parish has never been anything but conservative and quite traditional in its music. We have been blessed with a succession of priests who were the same. Must go to play for an NO mass that is performed by the book with appropriate music, but no maniples. Just pipe organ, traditional Anglican-leaning hymns, along with propers and chant.

And how do we rebuild belief?

Let us consider the sacraments of priestly prayers, which having been handed down by the apostles are celebrated uniformly throughout the whole world and in every Catholic Church so that the law of praying might establish the law of believing [ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi]
Prosper of Aquitane