Tom,

It depends what you mean by "are there any restrictions".

Polyphonic settings of all the Propers exist for all the Sundays of Lent, and I won't be at all surprised to find more, besides.

There are some (hereabouts, but also in the wider EF world) who advocate for no polyphony replacing Gregorian chant propers, but will tolerate those same polyphonic settings at the same Mass, as incidental rather than integral. There are no rubrics, to the best of my knowledge which require the restriction of polyphony such that it is not sung in Lent. (How one could foster and promote the treasury of sacred music while banning it, for example, is a puzzle I won't solve for you.)

On the question of personal taste, there are some clerics (happily, now, few in number) who hold to the principle that the choir should sing nothing polyphonic because it will sissify the Mass. The time of year is irrelevant to those who believe thusly, so the fact that it is Lent is merely a pretext, if someone claims that the Church bans polyphony in Lent.

De Musica Sacra ... :

17. Sacred polyphony may be used in all liturgical functions, ... .

Mediator Dei §62 :

... one would be straying from the straight path were he to ...; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

It might be said the simple chant from one or two devoted hearts that accomplishes this is more acceptable than 40 professional singers on hire giving a “stellar performance.”

Indeed. It might be said with a high degree of accuracy.

@Incardination

I understand that God can use the means of hire for a way to conversion, but I myself feel it is a very fine line that quickly slips down a slope and I would approach it very carefully. I would require them to at least be Christian and seeking to live a moral life.

Catholic musicians (professional) rightly deserve to receive wages just as they harken back to the Levitical order and it requires a lot of time to serve the worship of God in the best manner possible.

Unfortunately, the present modern(ist) church has totally lost sight of the value in the worship of God and it enlists anyone with the slightest interest in strumming a guitar to fulfill the role that belongs to a most serious and necessary Levitical mandate.

...and, unfortunately, the priesthood has been reduced to the same, with no requisition for purity of heart, hence why we have the apostate condition at the highest levels.

It all must be returned to proper order, starting at the top.

Chris, I never stated that the "principle" purpose of singing at Mass is to derive spiritual sustenance - immaterial whether that is for the people in the pews or for the singers.

However, that doesn't prevent non-Catholics from adoring God within the construct of the Catholic Liturgy, and our purpose DOES extend beyond the primary purpose of increasing the honor and glory rendered to God by our music. I will agree that it is a fine line as Francis indicates in his response. On the other hand, there is a fine line in being overly critical of that participation as well... which was the analogy I made about paying musicians (I am paid, I'm not making a true argument against it).

Virtue is in the middle; all things can be taken to extremes on one end or the other.

Incardination,

It's quite true that virtue is in the middle between two vices, because it is the proper balance, neither too much nor too little. That's not what's at stake here. There isn't a choice between awful music (on one side) or non-Catholic musicians (on the other).

Furthermore, while there are secondary purposes beyond the worship of God -- for example, the instruction of the faithful -- whatsoever fulfills the secondary purpose at the expense of the primary is, surely, wide of the mark.

Incardination,

I recognize an honest disagreement when I see one, and I won't press the point. My first Catholic parish directing position came my way when I wasn't yet Catholic. My involvement in the program had little to do with my becoming Catholic.

At present, I'm not directing a choir, but when I next am in such a position, I shall make every attempt to uphold the highest standards.

It could also exclude Catholics who question if Pope Francis is pope, among other things.

Would you accept a Catholic choir member in a state of mortal sin? What about ones inwardly questioning their faith or "cafeteria Catholic"? Those with less than orthodox opinions on certain matters? It seems to me that to draw a black and white distinction is rather academic.

This brings on a sense of deja vu, as I'm fairly certain we've had this debate before...

Honestly, though - if you wouldn't pay the people in your choir, but instead choose to pay (even Catholic) "outsiders" to fill your choir, then why do you have the members you do? Are you hiring extras to hopefully cover the sounds of who you already have?
Are you confident that even your well-rounded musician members are so devoted that they won't at all feel like you are slighting them by not offering them anything for their devotion and time? We should all give of our talents freely to the Lord. Sometimes, it's hard to convince our spouses that that really is the best way to spend Mass for years, without "anything to show for it."

There is no reason to exclude some beautiful polyphony during Lent.
You don't have to stack the deck and tackle 8 or more parts, just to have something amazingly beautiful.

"I don't know if the stonemasons who built our church were saintly or depraved."

Well, they were . . . masons!

Our Roman liturgical music does not admit much individual expression. If I am going to a Baptist or Pentecostal church, sure, it's noteworthy that the singer on stage used to be a mafioso and is now an evangelist and now is going to tearfully sing "Softly and Tenderly, Jesus is Calling". But if I am going to Mass, I know the chant for today is on page X of the Gradual, and I want to hear it sung skilfully by well-trained voices. Who they are isn't part of the equation, just like I don't care who the celebrant is, if he's been properly ordained, sings well, and says the black and does the red. They are getting themselves out of the way and celebrating the rite the Church has given us.

On the one hand, I'm inclined to agree with you, but if a non-Catholic and or contumacious public sinner is singing, while his work may be technically proficient, it is (nevertheless) lacking an important element: non-hypocrisy.

There is absolutely no comparison of hiring souls to build a church or even the altar with those who minister within the walls. Total ruse.

So is the Donatism argument. We WANT the Catholic sinners in the priesthood and the choir... I is one! But we should also require (expect) them to be striving to live what they profess as one also. Availing oneself to Confession (and the sacraments and prayer in general) is VERY VERY VERY important as a Catholic choir member and a priest. Fleeing from sin should be one’s disposition, not excusing or ignoring the state of one’s soul.

In former times, there were rubrics in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum prohibiting polyphony during Passiontide, Advent and Lenten ferias, and Requiem Masses. Given the number of polyphonic compositions for those occasions, it's safe to assume that the prohibitions were either outright ignored or considerably modified by local custom, legislation, or indult.

The thread is about Lenten polyphony, in the context of which someone asked about whether it is kosher to have non-Catholic musicians singing or otherwise serving leading roles in the public worship of the Church. Your reference to #2358 apparently missed my observation about the difference between contumacious public sinners and the rest of us, which has no necessary connection to those who suffer from the confusion referenced in #2358.

Of my six singers, five choristers and a cantrice (THANK YOU for that lovely word!), one of my men is not kosher, but he is Jewish. He is a friend of my former cantrice (twice in one post!!!) who is now an alto in the choir. At this point, in an ordinary form parish, but making small strides (I am not a huge advocate of the E.F. but recognize all that it stands for and does) in going back to our musical patrimony bringing with it the beauty and reverence all Masses deserve, I needs must embrace whoever presents themselves for service.

chonak, you clearly missed the point.

It was pointing out the absurdity of one ridiculous statement (universally excluding non-Catholics from singing in a Catholic choir because they are apparently incapable of being pure and faithful in their praise of God) by making another (if singing should be purely from love of God, why pay the musician?).

If you read further, I was very clear that I'm not making that as an actual argument.

I will agree that it is a fine line as Francis indicates in his response. On the other hand, there is a fine line in being overly critical of that participation as well... which was the analogy I made about paying musicians (I am paid, I'm not making a true argument against it).

the absurdity of one ridiculous statement (universally excluding non-Catholics from singing in a Catholic choir because they are apparently incapable of being pure and faithful in their praise of God)

I have mixed feelings about this and will offer scattered thoughts rather than a conclusive argument one way or the other. Church documents recognize both liturgical choirs (men or boys, may be vested and in the sanctuary) and choirs of the faithful, which cannot sing from the sanctuary. We read in De musica sacra et sacra liturgia that

The laity also participate actively in the liturgy by virtue of their baptismal character which enables them, in their own way, to offer the divine Victim to God the Father with the priest in the holy sacrifice of the Mass itself.

I cannot think of any part of the liturgy sung by a liturgical choir that cannot be sung by a lay "choir of the faithful." Furthermore, I'm unaware of any part of the liturgy sung by the choir that could not, at least in theory, be sung by the whole congregation. Are non-Catholics present as Mass or other liturgical services allowed to sing as part of the congregation? If the answer is yes, why should they be excluded from the choir? Does it matter why a non-Catholic wishes to sing at Mass? On the other hand, it would be going too far to say that non-Catholics have a right to participate in the liturgy, even merely as part of the congregation.

Choir membership is more exclusive than congregational participation because it requires a certain aptitude (matching pitch, blending, etc.) plus availability for rehearsals, of course with stricter standards in some places than others. Do non-Catholics belong in a choir of the faithful? The currently prevailing ecclesiology, if I'm not mistaken, regards all of the baptized as in some sense within the Church even though not in full communion. (Whether we agree is irrelevant to this particular discussion.) What about unbaptized persons who in no way profess Catholicism or any form of Christianity? One FSSP priest, when asked about hiring non-Catholic singers, said an argument could be made that as long as there were at least one Catholic in the choir, the others merely supplement that one member of the faithful. Many would find that argument unconvincing. But it is not all that uncommon for some Catholic churches to host guest choirs, usually from local colleges or high schools, to sing for Mass. What if there is not a single Catholic in such a choir? In what way can they be regarded as a choir of the faithful?

In the few places where there is a vested men/boys choir, should a unbaptized person (and one who is neither catechumen nor candidate but rather an unbeliever) be admitted? Or one who has apostatized from the Catholic faith? Could such be admitted to a lay choir of the faithful? Is it a slippery slope to barring Catholics who are not separated from the Church but nevertheless unable to receive sacraments, such as those in irregular marriage situations? Would prohibiting them from non-sacramental participation in the liturgy (assuming no scandal would ensue from admitting them) serve anyone's best interest if they otherwise met the requirements for membership in the choir?

My personal experience with paid singers in Catholic contexts is that even if their musicianship is beyond reproach, those who aren't themselves Catholic (or already in RCIA or seriously considering it) just aren't "into it." For example, they rarely arrive early and are usually the first to leave at the end of Mass. Sometimes they are noticeably fidgety or agitated during services when not actually singing for long stretches. They don't exactly contribute to the spiritual unity of the choir! On the other hand, practicing Catholics in the same capacity are often every bit as dedicated as the best volunteers. Maybe every case has to be handled on a individual basis. There's some guidance in Church documents as far as general principles to apply, but maybe nothing so clear-cut as to be one-size-fits-all. I think it is reasonable and fair to say again that non-Catholics do not have the right to participate in the liturgy, but nearly all over the world, those of good will are welcomed to do so. We would probably also find near-unanimous agreement that it is preferable that anyone singing in church actually believe the words being vocalized. Beyond that, maybe we would have as many opinions as forum members, ranging from "all are welcome" to "only Catholics in the state of grace."

MadOrganist, you are quite correct that there are arguments to be made on both sides, which is why I think it is a fine line. I can appreciate someone deciding either way in his / her particular situation - no qualms about that what-so-ever. But to try and make a universal statement that it is always wrong or always right is to ignore the complexity of the situation.

What about non-Catholics who are becoming Catholic? (I had one such situation earlier this year.) Do we exclude them from taking part at Mass? I don't know of any church that would tell Catechumens they must leave before the Credo as was done in the first centuries. What about non-Catholics who are - to all appearances - devout and respectful of the Liturgy, even if they are among the first to leave at the end of Mass?

In the EF, the principal part of what we (i.e. the choir in particular) do is to increase the honor and glory rendered to God, through our participation musically in the Liturgy. That is not achieved through the beauty of our music, but simply by uniting ourselves to the celebration of the Mass (Office) as part of, in the name of, with the voice of the Universal Church. In that context, non-Catholics may sing but can't really contribute - they can't truly "participate" as members of the Church. On the other hand, we necessarily have a secondary aspect to what we do as a choir - to draw souls to Christ. This secondary aspect IS at least somewhat dependent on the beauty and perfection of what we do musically. In this context, non-Catholics can certainly participate and contribute to what we do... and our efforts in this regard extend to all present, Catholic or not. Put succinctly, our effort to draw souls to Christ is not limited merely to Catholics.

We - all of us Catholics, musician or non-musician alike - have an obligation to convert non-Catholics... an obligation in charity and justice. Our efforts don't have to be overt. They can be by example, by simply sharing the nature of who we are as Catholics with those non-Catholics.

If our focus - as a choir - is merely on "music"... then we miss the boat whether our group is purely Catholic or mixed. But if we use rehearsals to periodically underscore the true nature of what we do in choir; if we use time (here and there, certainly not every rehearsal) to illustrate Faith through our musical action, this would seem to be an excellent opportunity to potentially draw the non-Catholic into the Church.

As for "commitment" or "degree of investment" in what we do, I've asked people to leave choir who are not truly invested (as demonstrated through not being committed to rehearsal or through ongoing attitude). I apply those standards to anyone taking part, Catholic or non-Catholic.

Non-Catholics who physically attend Mass can verbally (or musically) make all the responses, and can take all the proper postures, and still not participate in the Mass.

Yes, I agree. That was the point of:

they can't truly "participate" as members of the Church

in our primary role as a choir.

On the other hand, they most certainly can take part in the secondary aspect of what we do as a choir. Our efforts at drawing souls to Christ are not relegated to those in the congregation, but is as much directed to those in the sanctuary and those in the loft itself as it is to those in the pews.

Richard will speak for himself, but I understood him to mean, "We don't really want people to mean "Crucify Him!" all over again, even as Masses are cancelled in dioceses internationally.

"We don't really want people to mean "Crucify Him!" all over again, even as Masses are cancelled in dioceses internationally.

But surely we do want them to believe that the scriptural account they're taken from is factual and inspired by the Holy Ghost!

I said believe. Mean was someone else's take on it. I'm unsure what the claim in question is.