Well, someone who isn’t baptized is not permitted to lector (someone who isn’t a believer cannot formally proclaim scripture*1) so in theory such a standard should apply to musicians as well.

As for whether or not they are Catholic specifically, that’s a tougher one since musicians have always been mercenaries and they are a highly-skilled cohort (in theory). All I’ll say is that it is common to hire outside musicians for special musical needs, but considering it is corporate worship, spiritual matters should not be ignored for convenience. I’d have to suppose our Lord would prefer beautiful believing hearts and more modest music than the other way around.

I do think the prohibition agains non-baptized people should NOT be ignored at any rate. Psalmists are proclaiming scripture, after all. (And I would add to this, baptized but apostate. You shouldn’t have someone who doesn’t believe leading worship. I believe that would technically qualify as “fraud” in the formal/theological sense.)

____
*1 this is an issue for modern-day weddings and funerals, and to my understanding, priests are supposed to vet this. We have turned away various family members for this very reason.

@francis

It has always been my practice that cantors are drawn from the parish, and should be exemplary models of the Catholic faith.

Or at least those sinners whose sins and their magnitude are unknown to the wider community.

I am always uncomfortable with those discussions about the sins of others, and how these sins should disbar them from publicly assisting at the Liturgy. I wish I had the courage of St. Moses (AD 405) and possibly St. Sisoes who did the following,

... has him carrying a basket filled with sand. When he arrived at the meeting place, the others asked why he was carrying the basket. He replied, "My sins run out behind me and I do not see them, but today I am coming to judge the errors of another."

The general rule about those known to be exemplary in the faith is intended to accomplish two things, it seems to me.

1) Objectively speaking, those are given the greatest responsibility in the proclamation of the faith who are most able to carry it. {Sister Dierdre Byrne says something about defeating the culture by remaining in the state of grace}.

2. Those publicly known to be living a life contrary to the faith -- say, depriving the laborer of his wages, or engaging in un-natural conjugation, or keeping a mistress on the side, or butchering the unborn or dispatching the infirm -- not be given the occasion to cause scandal by being promoted within the ceremonies of the church.

Charles (and anyone else who thinks like this):

When I worked at a parish with an attached school and I was both younger and less informed than I am, I made the mistake of allowing Protestant students (with the encouragement of the headmistress and the pastor) to serve as cantrices. I was a recent convert at the time.

The fundamental problem with using the liturgy as a form of missionary activity in the manner you propose is that the liturgy is an act of worship by God, Christ both head and members. Protestants, by virtue of their Protestantism aren't united to Him in faith, and aren't really, truly, members of His Body.

This shouldn't be taken to mean that Protestants sing badly. (Surely, some do, but that conclusion is entirely independent of my argument). It shouldn't be taken to mean that missionary activity is bad. (Worth the name, it's a very good thing). It shouldn't be taken to mean that Catholics think we're somehow naturally better than everyone else. (We're only supernaturally better because we have the life of sanctifying grace in our souls, so Catholics in an objective state of mortal sin are, arguably, in a worse position because they've squandered the special gifts they've been given.)

All liturgical ministers must be members of the Catholic Church, period.

Lectors and altar servers were once considered liturgical ministers. They are not considered that these days.

They aren’t? News to me.

Charles,

Softened and gone soft aren't the same thing, you know.

A liturgical minister is still one who fulfills an office at the public worship of the Church. Who qualifies as a liturgical minister, then? Lectors, members of the choir, what I call sometimes "the altar party". Emergency Ministers aren't really liturgical ministers because they're supposed to be for emergency use only. Firemen don't get paid by the same department that pays the librarians' salaries. "Ushers" (who, I'm told, "ush": 'I ushed yesterday', 'you are ushing tomorrow') seem to be trying to be an extension of the Porter, and so would probably qualify. "Ministers of Hospitality".... well,... if they're ministers, they're not liturgical ones. Sign language interpreters aren't liturgical ministers, either, so far as I can tell. They're interpreters.

I recall being informed somewhere that only a Catholic can read the lectionary.
Whether this applies to psalmodists is up in the air.
I would think that it did since the psalm is considered part of the lectionary.

At Walsingham the entire lectionary is sung on solemnities and only an ordained lector or acolyte can sing the OT lesson, and only the sub-deacon can sing the epistle.
I assume that this applies throughout the ordinariate.

I think you are over-estimating the numbers in minor orders. There is a tendency to look around in your own circle and assume everyone else is doing the same.

Liturgical ministries include lay ministries such as cantor, or reader, or server or EMHC, etc., whether formally instituted, like a lector or acolyte (into whose duties Paul VI added those of the suppressed subdiaconate), or simply a layperson deputizing. See GIRM Nos. 100-107.

The requirements that said ministers be Catholics is in the Code of Canon Law, not the GIRM; my copy of CCL (CIC) is at the church, so I cannot quote it at the moment.

Is this Maronite order male only? (I presume so, but then we open a whole other can of worms…)

Life in prison or the death penalty. A person who is in prison can repent and receive absolution in a more leisurely way.

The point, though, Charles, is that they DO still exist, or bishops wouldn't be conferring them on those presented to them.

Chris, it is like the blind man and the elephant. Some only sense their own narrow little part instead of the whole. Those offices have essentially disappeared in the majority of the church, for good or ill. My eastern church still has those "minor" orders. Interesting info on the Maronites from hilluminar.

Chris, its all semantics. Those orders are gone in the church in the U.S. for any practical purposes. I don't know if the Trads have been able to hold on to them since I don't attend Trad liturgies.

Charles,

I won't test our generous host's patience by illustrating that words matter.

You're trying to suggest (in your almost Byzantine way) that the difference I have established is one which is not significant. I disagree, and will use the examples here to illustrate:

His Holiness changed the language on altar boys to allow/encourage/mandate the previously prohibited/discouraged/reprobated girl altar boys. One small change mattered.

For right-thinking Catholics here and in every previous generation, homoousion and homoiousion make a tremendous difference.

Let's change the name of the Dormition of the Theotokos to the Assumption of the Mother of God.


and yet,. it's all just semantics?

Bombarde,

On the one hand, engaged couples are not (morally) free to engage in marital intimacy.
On the other hand, those who died before baptism, by martyrdom, were described as having been baptised in/of blood.

It seems to me -- and I may be wrong on this point -- that participation ministerially in the public worship of the Church excludes those who are in formation.

Chris, I have seen people pulled from the congregation at random to read, be an altar server and do those "ministries" - hate that word - that were formerly done by those ordained or consecrated to those roles. It is a fairly common practice.

I suppose I can only speak to my experience, which, in a way, is what I'm defending.

My wife and I are working with our priest toward entering the Catholic Church. We are Catholic at heart and desire to enter fully into the Sacred Mysteries.

Until this decision was made, we were members of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

I have been blessed to have been working for the Catholic Church for the last 4+ years (to which I give great credit regarding our formation and desire to become Catholic). Over those years, I have "won out" jobs over my respective Catholic brethren because of my abilities regarding organ, choir, chant, etc.

Though, and this is definitely the exception, not the rule: I have been adamant at every turn to hold to SC, MS, GIRM, and all the other magesterial documents, and have been sure to hold to and teach truly Catholic music, while throwing out anything that reeks of the hum-and-strum, didgeridoo, and feely-goody that have infiltrated the Catholic Church. My opinion as always been to "reintroduce to the Catholics those things which are rightfully theirs, which seem to be all but completely abandoned in the NO; and to teach them about their heritage, their musc, and their faith as far as one can in the Liturgy."

While the ideal is that someone who would be hired for my position would be Catholic, I can't let the ideal be the enemy of the good.

Should I step away from my position until my wife and I are fully participatory in the Catholic Faith? That would be irresponsible on so many levels for my family and for the good things that I have accomplished in my current position. So I guess, by the ruling of this conversation on the forum, I am cooperating in evil things, and it will be evil until my wife and I are Catholic?

I prefer to think that I have been allowed and given great graces by our Lord in being allowed to be convinced of the Catholic Faith by being immersed into the Holy Mysteries of the Mass, of the music He has bestowed unto His Church, and by being allowed to be formed by wonderful priests.

Should Catholics be hired for a position in a Catholic Church? Yes. Is it sometimes ignored in favor of one perhaps more well-formed, and "more qualified?" Yes. But in the latter case, it should ALWAYS be the exception, not the rule...

Thanks for the soap box.... I'll get off now...

Bombarde, welcome to you and your wife! We pray that you perservere in your preparation and that you will be received into the Church ASAP. You may believe that you "won out" over other applicants merely for your musical expertise, but perhaps you were chosen by a pastor with true wisdom and discernment.

Charles,

What "fringe" group do you think I belong to?

Carol,

With you, I can pray that Bombarde and his wife persevere in their preparation.

Bombarde,

I am a convert, but not from Missouri Synod Lutheranism. I understand the line of reasoning you put forward, and probably was/would have been on the cheering squad for it at one time. I served in two Catholic parishes before I was received into the Church. At one of them, I was received into the Church.

Thus, I will tread carefully on this ground.

I came to understand the flaw in the argument after I became Catholic.

Children lean on the faith of their parents, and do so in the order of grace as well as the order of nature. Adults must accomplish things which children do not need to accomplish before they receive Our Lord in Holy Communion, but this is the result of having reached maturity, not anything else.

Years ago I encountered this problem: I was becoming Catholic by this point, and my brother wasn't, but he sang in a Catholic cathedral choir, and was told by his pastor that he could receive Confession and Holy Communion -- or Holy Communion, at any rate -- because as a singer in the cathedral choir he was unable to have recourse to a minister of his own Ecclesial Community. I don't know if anyone ever made sure that he believed that this was, really, truly, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Himself. My brother referred me to the document which Monsignor used to justify this course of action, and it seemed to me (then, and now) that it didn't apply to my situation. My fiancee, and then, later, my wife, asked me not to receive, and so I didn't.

Engaged couples may not licitly engage in the marital embrace. (Charles: a thing may be common, and still evil!) They are in the same position you and your wife are in: on their way to completion, but not there, yet.

People who discover -- this happened to friends of mine -- that they aren't validly married but intended to be, must go through a process of getting their situation remedied and, in the meantime, must live as brother and sister. If they have "married" rashly, civilly, there may be children for whom they are responsible -- that's the analogy to your situation -- and so they may not abandon those children, but they are still to live as brother and sister.


What does all of this about marriage have to do with your question about being a musician at the Mass? Another name for the Mass is the Wedding Banquet of the Lamb.

I probably represent a minority opinion hereabouts (and certainly, as Charles will aver, in the church at large) but I don't see the flaw in the argument, if there is one.

CGZ and Carol,

My wife and I thank you and all for the prayers.

Believe it or not, I agree with your premise. Those who are not Catholic should not be participating in the Mass. If that were understood and practiced everywhere, it would be a wonderful testament to our Faith and how our practice reflects that.

I'm not advocating that we should have widespread hiring of non-Catholics to hold positions at Catholic Churches.... but, in recognizing that it does happen.... and recognizing that my situation and approach is an eccentric one, I suppose that I'm only striving to make known that what could be inherently bad and undesirable, God can obviously use for his purpose.

If I was a volunteer, I would certainly step back until I entered into Communion with the Church... but as this is my livelihood, and as there is no feasible way for me to step back, I must continue on until we are received into the Church. Therefore I am loath to say that what I am doing musically is less worthy as I am not yet in full communion... and I am lucky to be at a place that desires to dive more deeply into the liturgical beauty of the Church's patrimony, albeit in an NO setting.... what we are doing is likely better than what (probably) 80% of NO Churches are practicing....

I suppose I'm just running a rut around a tree in trying to explain my position....

I advocate that Catholic Churches should hire only Catholic musicians if at all possible; that the Church should only rely on TRULY Catholic individuals for volunteer work within the Mass (Server, Lector, etc...)

In my situation, which is abnormal, I believe that God brought me to this parish so that we might form and teach each other, so that my wife and I could be brought into the fold, and so that I could help this Parish reclaim their patrimony so that they may find themselves in a truly beautiful and full expression of Catholic Liturgy and of the Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and Unity of the Mass.

(Soapbox passed off to the next....)

I remember one of the big things from Vatican II was that the church could now interact with and transform the world. Unfortunately, the world has transformed the church into something smacking of Protestantism, or worse. Sad to say, Chicago has been off the wall for years. Must be something in the water.

Hawkins,

If you draw the conclusion (from your quite correct Aquinas) that catechumens and atheists and heretics and schismatics can/may/should proclaim the Epistle or the Gospel, or be entrusted with musical duties of any kind, you've done a Peter Singer on us. Peter Singer (in case anyone doesn't know) correctly asserts that there's no ontological difference between a human in utero, a human in the birth canal and a human in the arms of his mother, .... and then concludes that it must be quite sensible to euthanize teenagers.

If

Protestants, by virtue of their Protestantism aren't united to Him in faith, and aren't really, truly, members of His Body.

They why don't re re-baptise them if they decide to join the Catholic church?

I'd rather a non-Catholic Christian with a heart that loves Jesus and the people s/he is helping to worship, then a cold hearted but "correctly" baptised legalist.

Pax,

Thank you for asking.

They've been validly baptised (often enough) but there's a papal encyclical somewhere (which I'll go find, if you like) which posits something along these lines. Increasingly, of course, the validity of the baptism is suspect because the Protestants are getting squishy in their formulae.

Of course, by the way, false dichotomies exist all over the place. Most recently deployed ones have some form of "would you rather have a dead daughter or an alive son".

Cold-hearted people are never much fun. Francis de Sales' goals, in Geneva, were to warm the hearts of the Catholics there, convert the Calvinists, and warm their hearts, too. He succeeded, by God's grace, beyond most people's wild fantasies. To the best of my knowledge, he didn't invite the Protestants to use their talents at Mass, until they were no longer Protestants.

Jeffrey,

I'm not making rules, and I don't want to make rules. The rule already exists, and was reiterated (that I know of) as recently as the pontificate of John Paul II.