Musicam Sacram
  • deo27
    Posts: 25
    How much teeth does Musicam Sacram have? It seems like parts of it have been ignored by most or not done because some priests think chanting is only for certain ‘special’ Sundays/Holy Days throughout the year. Alternatively, you may have a priest that knows the rubrics but requires you to not follow them due to an insecurity with silence. I remember the big push for music directors to know and promote the USCCB’s ‘Sing to the Lord’ but I never experienced the same push for the rubrics below. Notice part of the rubric says ‘may never be used without the first.’ According to this rubric, we should not be singing the Kyrie, Gloria, and Agnus Dei unless the following are sung as well:

    -Entrance Rite/Dismissal
    -Acclamations at the Gospel
    -Preface with its dialogue, followed by the Sanctus
    -Final doxology of the Canon
    -Our Father
    -Pax Domini

    27. For the celebration of the Eucharist with the people, especially on Sundays and feast days, a form of sung Mass (Missa in cantu) is to be preferred as much as possible, even several times on the same day.

    28. The distinction between solemn, sung and read Mass, sanctioned by the Instruction of 1958 (n. 3), is retained, according to the traditional liturgical laws at present in force. However, for the sung Mass (Missa cantata), different degrees of participation are put forward here for reasons of pastoral usefulness, so that it may become easier to make the celebration of Mass more beautiful by singing, according to the capabilities of each congregation.

    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.

    29. The following belong to the first degree:

    (a) In the entrance rites: the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the prayer.

    (b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the acclamations at the Gospel.

    (c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: the prayer over the offerings; the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus; the final doxology of the Canon, the Lord's prayer with its introduction and embolism; the Pax Domini; the prayer after the Communion; the formulas of dismissal.


    30. The following belong to the second degree:

    (a) the Kyrie, Gloria and Agnus Dei;

    (b) the Creed;

    (c) the prayer of the faithful.


    31. The following belong to the third degree:

    (a) the songs at the Entrance and Communion processions;

    (b) the songs after the Lesson or Epistle;

    (c) the Alleluia before the Gospel;

    (d) the song at the Offertory;

    (e) the readings of Sacred Scripture, unless it seems more suitable to proclaim them without singing.

    Thanked by 1GregoryWeber
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,617
    well, parts of it have been superseded by the later editions of the Roman Missal.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,240
    The schema of teaching the most basic things, those which change little or none, first, is sound, and CMAA recommends it all the time. (For example, in our "Frequently Asked Questions on Sacred Music".)

    But note that Musicam sacram presents them thus:

    different degrees of participation are put forward here for reasons of pastoral usefulness,


    that is: they are a model that the Sacred Congregation of Rites (the author of MS) was proposing; they're not a mandate.
    Thanked by 7deo27 hilluminar tomjaw Liam Paul F. Ford CatholicPriest GregoryWeber
  • monasteryliturgistmonasteryliturgist
    Posts: 576
    I think the general issue with this, at least in my experience is that most of the time it is the priest indicating what is sung and what is not, not the Liturgist.
    Thanked by 2deo27 CharlesW
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,617
    Because few if any bishops were ever going to make their priests' singing the dialogues and orations the effective norm for at least Masses on Sundays and other days of precept; the SCR anticipated that result by issuing a mere model rather than a mandate, and thus did not obstruct or displace the inertia of long-time liturgical minimalism.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw CHGiffen hilluminar
  • henry
    Posts: 253
    I don't think Musicam Sacram has been superseded by any other documents. Pope Francis even said so in an address in 2017 at an International Conference on Sacred Music.
    Thanked by 1deo27
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,617
    Not in toto (that's what Pope Francis' comment addresses), but in part, and parts of it are not mandates.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,286
    I once read an article that decried that (like so many things) we were enforcing this process exactly backwards. Add it to the list of things the council never asked for. It never asked for altars to be ripped out, and it never asked for us to sing hymns instead of propers, but here we are. My advice is to simply try and implement what the council actually asked for little by little. Catechize your people as you go. It takes years to right the ship. But when people challenge you (and some will) you can point directly to the all-holy-all-mighty-infallible-(but-explicitly-not-dogmatic-but-who-cares)-holier-than-trent-could-ever-hope-to-be council's own words as perfect justification for your actions.
    Thanked by 5novusgordo ian_udell deo27 Chant_Supremacist Abbysmum
  • deo27
    Posts: 25
    At my last parish, I added the introit and the communion chant, but we still sang hymns to cover the remaining time. No one complained, thank goodness. I am no longer there and a proper chant is about as common as a goose laying a golden egg.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 12,085
    It is a good document but rarely followed. As to what teeth it has, remember those old paraffin teeth some of oldsters bought as kids? About that much teeth.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen deo27 novusgordo
  • WillWilkin
    Posts: 43
    Article 28 says these degrees apply to the sung mass. Regarding common parish ordinary Form Sunday masses, what category do they meet? Sung or read?
    Thanked by 1GregoryWeber
  • PaxMelodious
    Posts: 488
    I cannot remember the last time I had a parish priest who could sing. In the present parish, we've had a couple of visiting priests who can - but are reluctant to do so when they know the incumbent doesn't.

    It rather limits what is possible.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,678
    De musica sacra et sacra liturgia gives a precise definition in 1958
    3. There are two kinds of Masses: the sung Mass (“Missa in cantu“), and the read Mass (“Missa lecta“), commonly called low Mass.
    There are two kinds of sung Mass: one called a solemn Mass if it is celebrated with the assistance of other ministers, a deacon and a sub-deacon; the other called a high Mass if there is only the priest celebrant who sings all the parts proper to the sacred ministers.
    But GIRM (1969) provides later legislation overturning it
    IMPORTANCE OF SINGING
    19. ...
    With due consideration for the culture and ability of each congregation, great importance should be attached to the use of singing at Mass; but it is not always necessary to sing all the texts that are of themselves meant to be sung.
    ...
    [my emphases]
    Thanked by 2GregoryWeber Roborgelmeister
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,678
    28. The distinction between solemn, sung and read Mass, sanctioned by the Instruction of 1958 (n. 3), is retained, according to the traditional liturgical laws at present in force.
    No longer; the OF is not tied to a distinction based on the celebrant's willingness to sing.
    Thanked by 1Roborgelmeister
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,286
    Not exactly. Musicam Sacram states,
    7. Between the solemn, fuller form of liturgical celebration, in which everything that demands singing is in fact sung, and the simplest form, in which singing is not used, there can be various degrees according to the greater or lesser place allotted to singing. However, in selecting the parts which are to be sung, one should start with those that are by their nature of greater importance, and especially those which are to be sung by the priest or by the ministers, with the people replying, or those which are to be sung by the priest and people together. The other parts may be gradually added according as they are proper to the people alone or to the choir alone.
  • ContinuousbassContinuousbass
    Posts: 384
    It’s great that you follow the old church documents but whatever document is most recent and locally promulgated by your bishop and received by your pastor is what matters most.
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,271
    It’s great that you follow the old church documents but whatever document is most recent and locally promulgated by your bishop and received by your pastor is what matters most.


    So,you must not be Catholic.

    [Please refer to the Forum Etiquette Guidelines, item #1. Thank you. --admin]
    Thanked by 2tomjaw francis
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,444
    @Continuousbass...
    Please elaborate on what you mean by "locally promulgated by your bishop" and "received by your pastor."
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,256
    So,you must not be Catholic.

    Either that, or he wishes to stay employed. Which is the more charitable interpretation.
    Thanked by 5CHGiffen Abbysmum Liam CharlesW francis
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,286
    I certainly don't follow, CB-- Musicam Sacram is a document of the council. So it most certainly does apply to the novus ordo... it was written specifically to address music for the novus ordo missae! And things like the GIRM flow, at least in part, from it.

    Perhaps you are confusing it for De Musica Sacra et Sacra Liturgia which was promulgated just antecedent to the council?

    And even if such a mistake were made, careful study of the footnotes reveals that Musicam Sacram actually cites De Musica Sacra et Sacra Liturgia as one of its sources, which means it is in itself considered authoritative, just as is Tra le Sollicitudini. (The fact that people claim TLS was a 'dead letter' always cracks me up, since it is referenced multiple times in the council documents...)
    Thanked by 6Jeffrey Quick Abbysmum irishtenor tomjaw francis Chant_Supremacist
  • ContinuousbassContinuousbass
    Posts: 384
    You are correct. The only authority over a musician is the pastor.
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,256
    The only authority over a musician is the pastor.

    That's true, in a real-world sense. But also incomplete. And almost a kind of localized ultramontanism.

    If Father and I are both doing our jobs, we are familiar with what the Church asks of musicians. We've gone through Hayburn and cursed its lack of a proper index. We know the papal and conciliar documents about music, and ponder them. But not every pastor is well-formed or interested in music. And sometimes musicians need fraternal correction. If they're both on the same wavelength and disagree, they can talk it out together. If they aren't.... the musician is going to have a crisis of conscience, because for most of us, it's not a job, it's a calling. We want to do and believe that which has been done by all, always, everywhere, and to learn by what the Church has said and what it has DONE about music. And since we like to eat, we have a vested interest in making sure that tradition is in intellectual play, and accepted by those who pay us.

    It’s great that you follow the old church documents but whatever document is most recent and locally promulgated by your bishop and received by your pastor is what matters most.


    This seems to me to be flippantly cavalier about the traditions of the church. Would you apply this rubric to any other part of our faith? Does Aquinas matter? do the Creeds matter? They were written long ago. If Vatican II is everything, does it invalidate Vatican I? Is music from 1900 or 900 irrelevant and useless? Do you personally live your Catholic musical life by this rubric, or are you trolling?
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen ServiamScores
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,286
    almost a kind of localized ultramontanism

    That phrase stopped me in my tracks.

    I have encountered many liturgical situations where the pastors act as though they are popes. I have a friend who just resigned a post because of a bad pastor. He was categorically forbidden from doing *any* Latin, no matter how trivial. He couldn’t even do an English version of Crux Fidelis on Good Friday.

    He has found greener pastures (bless him) but his experience has been fascinating to watch from afar. He did not fall prey to following blindly over the liturgical cliff. The fact is: what his pastor was decreeing and asking of him was wrong. Being faithful to tradition is often a higher calling than blind obedience to bad leadership.
    Thanked by 5novusgordo CHGiffen irishtenor tomjaw francis
  • ContinuousbassContinuousbass
    Posts: 384
    Yes. Pastors can interpret the GIRM however they want but not the missal itself. And yes if you don’t like it you can resign but how childish is that though. Musicians should be sticking around, focusing on the big picture.
  • GerardH
    Posts: 674
    almost a kind of localized ultramontanism

    Clericalism is what I would have called this; the kind of clericalism which asserts a priest can do no wrong. I hope it's something as a Church we can get over at every level.
    Thanked by 4ServiamScores novusgordo francis Chant_Supremacist
  • Charles_Weaver
    Posts: 215
    The point stands that we often must live out our vocation as liturgical musicians with the colleagues we have and with the pastors we have, which can mean striving to deal charitably with people who have wrong-headed views about some matters. And the Church is, by nature, hierarchical.

    You can always leave if you find it impossible to work with a particular pastor. But that is especially complicated if you have a family or are involved with the parish more broadly, though. Still, I can't think of a situation I have seen where a choir director working at cross purposes from a pastor with regard to music/liturgy has turned out well.
    Thanked by 5ServiamScores CHGiffen kevinf novusgordo Roborgelmeister
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,271
    Musicians should be sticking around, focusing on the big picture.


    Uh....no. Impeding tradition in the name of smug arrogance, functioning as a local feudal lord, flying in the face of the documents. Shall I go on?

    You forget that these behaviours have a serious effect on the musician. The emotional cost is heavy. Bad behaviour on the part of the priest is a definite reason to walk away.

    There are many good priests out there but there are idiots and mal-formed nutties. And then are those who fear tradition because they know better.

    Thanked by 4irishtenor tomjaw francis CharlesW
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,286
    I can't think of a situation I have seen where a choir director working at cross purposes from a pastor with regard to music/liturgy has turned out well.
    I certainly agree with this. And that's precisely the problem. I've said it again and again: the priest makes or breaks a job. Full stop.

    The emotional cost is heavy.
    I have mentioned before that I had to resign one post because the liturgical abuse and iconoclasm was so bad that I had to stop receiving communion because of the absolute rage I would feel. The pastor was objectively in the wrong (per the measure of the magisterium and the GIRM) and there was legitimate abuse (such as holding up the two extra cups during the consecration, whilst leaving the chalice on the altar, or only having ECHMC's while he went to sit down, in spite of no medical need to do so) but there was no stopping him. I spoke with him privately but to no avail. Everyone at the parish was devastated, not just me. But I finally hd to recuse myself because I was spiritually dying.

    Rather than being life-giving, bad liturgies are actually deleterious to the spiritual life. And this is precisely why we have to be so careful in what we do.
    Thanked by 9Jeffrey Quick CHGiffen irishtenor kevinf novusgordo Charles tomjaw francis CharlesW
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,256
    Musicians should be sticking around, focusing on the big picture.

    What is the big picture, in your eyes?

    I and some others here have articulated a big picture, which may not be yours, so I need to ask. That big picture might involve sacrifice of a small detail. Does a musician have to support bad liturgy, because if good musicians won't work for a pastor, he'll have to take what he can get, and the liturgy will get even worse?

    It's the tendency of a musician to think that the liturgy is everything, and that music is the liturgy. That's not true. But it is true that abuses travel in flocks. I would assume that in ServiamScore's example, music was improving, but the rest of the liturgy was so problematic that it didn't matter. There's a difference between self-sacrifice and masochism.
    Thanked by 3novusgordo CHGiffen tomjaw
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,188
    What is the big picture, in your eyes?

    I have a sense of what the big picture looks and sounds like on both the micro and macro level (having lived it in my own small way), but...

    ...you first.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,286
    Pastors can interpret the GIRM however they want but not the missal itself.
    The GIRM is part of the Roman Missal...

    I suppose you're meaning to say that there is a wide latitude for how the GIRM is applied by a given priest (this is a problem, generically, but that's a topic of discussion for another day) but the problem isn't even applying the options in the GIRM. When a priest outright says that "Latin is entirely verboten" they are going against the instructions of the Missal itself. What do you do in such a case? The order itself is not lawful. Such examples multiply a thousand fold. Where are you then? You are accused of "disobedience" merely for insisting on doing things how the rubrics tell you too. It's absolutely bizarre.
    Thanked by 2irishtenor tomjaw
  • francis
    Posts: 11,356
    We never have any of these issues at my parish. It’s as though everyone agrees with all things liturgical and musical and we all close our eyes, smile and pray, surrounded by the gloriously beautiful. Why would anyone want anything else for any other reason?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 3,286
    Why would anyone want anything else for any other reason?
    I would sure love to know, and I'd pay good money to find out the anwer! It seems many such souls abound, regrettably.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW tomjaw
  • ContinuousbassContinuousbass
    Posts: 384
    In the big picture I just see how inconsequential and transient our brief lives seem compared with eternity. Also, have any of you rage-quitters ever gone back to see how your protest vote turned out, or cared?

    Music is a gift from the Spirit, so when we come to a holy day of obligation, we should have more of the liturgy transmitted in Music rather than only speech, especially because more will be there to participate.

    If a parish has wrong ideas, it doesn’t transition overnight into orthodoxy.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 1,053
    Quitting for one's own spiritual benefit doesn't count as rage-quitting. It's called doing what you need to save your own soul.
    Thanked by 4CharlesW CHGiffen tomjaw francis
  • PaxMelodious
    Posts: 488
    ... but there are idiots and mal-formed nutties. And then are those who fear tradition because they know better.


    How Catholic is it to say things like this about a priest?

    I have no qualms about calling out bad behaviour on the part of a priest.

    But calling him an idiot or a nutties is ... rather on a different scale.
    Thanked by 1novusgordo
  • GerardH
    Posts: 674
    @PaxMelodious that sounds like clericalism again. Priests can be idiots too, if they so choose!
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,558
    Like the one who once told me that the Ascension in the fortieth day was merely tradition and not in the Bible!
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • TCJ
    Posts: 1,053
    A liturgy director told that to me, so I showed where it is in the Bible. He responded that it didn't matter anyway.
    Thanked by 3irishtenor tomjaw Chant_Supremacist
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,617
    People who didn't bother to listen to the second sentence of the first reading for the feast. Mind you, there is still a step of logic from that sentence, but it doesn't make the 40 days period mere tradition. (OTOH, the Great Commission scene in the gospel of the feast is not explicitly set as the very same scene as Acts 1. But that's a different matter.)
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,558
    Well much like with the Passion, it’s easy to weave together.
  • francis
    Posts: 11,356
    “Idiots and nutties” are tame compared to what Jesus called them.

    “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”

    He ain’t talking about the support staff at your local Parish. It’s quite plain and direct and we’s in it now, baby!

    Let’s see now… what was that one about a roaring lion and devouring souls?
Add a Comment