As I've been saying. S to the L represents an impressive about-face on encouraging silliness in church. Count me in as a firm supporter of it. Besides, what did you expect from the USCCB, another Musicam Sacram?

http://www.evansville-diocese.org/worship/SingToTheLord.pdf

Yea...

This is why Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail... without that promise we would have been outa business centuries ago.

I have the file... thanks all... just wondering if anyone knew where it might be located on the USCCB, but Mark has made the point loud and clear. However, I kinda think it's odd that it is lost and only available for sale.

hey, Carl, that is extremely nifty.

benedictgal

where is that documented about the lack of votes? i want that info on my resource directory.

Mark, while you enjoy doubting me, it was still not sent to Rome. Thus, SttL is only binding when it refers to the authoritative documents of the Church.

Mark, YES.

Who, in this country, IS the Church? Who is the highest human authority in this country? The bishops. They are the Holy Father's representatives and act under his authority. If they are advocating something contrary to what the pope says or documents say, that is an issue between them and their "employer", as it were - the Church. Let it be handled between them. The bishops have issued a statement on music, and it has to be respected, regardless of whether approved by Rome. If a particular ordinary creates particular law to the contrary in his own diocese, fine. Otherwise, it is "binding" in the sense of it being a teaching from the bishops particular to the United States.

I don't care how many bishops can dance on the head of a pin . . . that is, how many have voted in favor of or not in favor of any given document. Without recognitio, it does not become particular law, bound in conscience under pain of sin for failure to obey it.

Benedictgal is absolutely correct. And, here's why- Redemptionis Sacramentum sets the precedent forth, and codifies it:

[28.] All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, WITHOUT WHICH THEY LACK ANY BINDING FORCE.[My "shouted" emphasis added.]

Seems clear to me. SttL, as valuable as some bits of it may be, as a matter of historical fact, simply doesn't carry recognitio. 10,000 Bishops can be very wrong indeed if they act in a way contrary to the Holy See, and we are not bound to follow what they say. In fact, we're bound in conscience to not follow what they say, if it's contrary to the Holy See, under pain of sin.

I don't see this as being between the bishops as employees and the Holy Father as "employer." This is a matter of obedience and the welfare of immortal souls.

That's not to say that for the time being we should be "both/and" (a favored expression of the liberal elites in the AmChurch crowd), and "live in the question", doing our very best to do what the Church asks of us, regardless what the numerous documents of the USCCB may or may not say.

And, for the record, I agree with JT's overall analysis of the document.

David Andrew (and BG): your analysis might theoretically be correct if you had statements from the Vatican and from the U.S. Bishops that were actually contradictory, such as "No setting of the Gloria may use a refrain" / "It is perfectly fine for settings of the Gloria to have a refrain." But that is not the situation. The statements from the Vatican are at a very high level of generality, and applying them to particular concrete cases is a matter of interpretation. True, if it had the recognitio then SttL would in fact overrule prior contrary statements in other legislation. But there need not be anything contradictory between SttL and prior legislation in the first place, if the former is properly understood as an interpretive document that applies the latter to concrete situations.

As Catholics, we must always resist the Protestantizing tendency that says, "I myself must look at the source documents and decide personally on their correct interpretation. Then, if Church authorities disagree, they are clearly wrong, and are working against 'the welfare of immortal souls'." This is what Protestants do with, for example, "Call no man 'Father'," which appears on its face to be crystal clear, but which, the Church properly explains to us, actually means so little that it is perfectly fine to call priests "Father" and the Pope "Holy Father." This is also what radical traditionalists and sedevacantists do: they say, "I must look at old documents and figure out what 'Tradition' is. Then, if Newchurch disagrees, they are heretics and there is no pope." That's not the way it works. The properly constituted magisterial authorities of the Church tell us what "Tradition" means. If the old books say "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus," and I interpret this to mean that no Protestant can possibly go to Heaven, while the Church interprets it to mean that if Protestants are in Heaven it is through the Church rather than in spite of it, then I am the one whose interpretation was wrong.

Thus, in the case at hand, it is simply not the job of the individual to read Sacrosanctum Concilium, Liturgiam Authenticam, and all the rest, decide what they mean, and cast into the outer darkness all the bishops who disagree. Bishops trump you as touches the liturgy, you don't trump them. And the Vatican trumps bishops, but you are not the judge; the Vatican is. Until the Vatican says "These bishops are wrong; our previous documents did, in fact, prohibit responsorial Glorias," then the bishops are right. The proper heuristic for reading a Vatican documents ought to ask: "Is the statement clearer than 'Call no man Father', or vaguer?" If it is clearer, then you can safely obey its prima facie meaning. If it is as vague or vaguer, then you should rely on subsidiary Church authorities to interpret its correct meaning for you. So, in the case of responsorial Glorias, a clear statement from the Vatican might have said, "Repeating any portion of the Gloria for use as a congregational refrain is absolutely prohibited." Needless to say, the Vatican has pronounced no such thing.

David Andrew (and BG): your analysis might theoretically be correct if you had statements from the Vatican and from the U.S. Bishops that were actually contradictory, such as "No setting of the Gloria may use a refrain" / "It is perfectly fine for settings of the Gloria to have a refrain." But that is not the situation.

Mark, what about STTL's allowance of Agnus Dei tropes? That's blatantly changing the text, not even reusing other texts from the same section (in opposition to Vatican Documents). Or do you think that's perfectly fine too?

Mark, one more thing.

You point out that even though it seems the documents (such as the GIRM, SC, RS and TlS) would prohibit something like a responsorial gloria, yet you say the bishop's interpretation must prove us wrong.

In my travels, I've noticed that rarely do ordinaries celebrate Mass with 7 altar candles as they should (it's not optional).

Just to point out that just because a majority of the bishops of the US say something's ok, however sad it might be, it doesn't necessarily mean they are right...especially when Rome doesn't approve their decisions...

And I might point out a short history of the USCCB, for those of you who don't understand why I'm frequently skeptical of anything coming out of there...

Francis,

Wait. STTL was REJECTED? I thought it was never submited. That's a game changer...

To cut to the chase over what Ben Yanke was talking about:

In short, the Pope took enormous pains, indeed, almost unheard of pains, to make clear that organizations like the USCCB’s authority over any particular lay Catholic is:

Zero
Nada
Zilch
Zip
Goose Egg
Empty Set
Non-Existent
Completely Absent
A sounding brass and tinkling cymbal signifying nothing

In short, according to the infallible ordinary Magisterium, the teaching authority of the USCCB does not exist. Fifty cents and any USCCB document would not buy a candy bar, unless the cashier didn’t want to charge sales tax. The USCCB is a purely consultative body whose opinions aren’t worth rust in the scales. The only person a Catholic is required to at least listen to is his own bishop.

No decree of the USCCB has any weight unless the local bishop endorses it.

And the Pope felt it necessary to knock the USCCB off its high horse by creating a document that the USCCB officially refuses to notice on its own website.

Why does this matter?

Because within the USCCB there is a fight between bishops who wish to promote the Catholic Faith and bishops who wish to promote secular “social justice.” We must pray for the bishops of the USCCB, that all of them eventually gain the mind of good Catholics, or at least retire so they can be replaced by those who have such a mind.

"No decree of the USCCB has any weight unless the local bishop endorses it."

Well, I assume that means a decree would have weight within the dioceses of the bishops who voted for it?

Gavin posited:
Well, I assume that means a decree would have weight within the dioceses of the bishops who voted for it?

I don't think so either, because a vote in the USCCB isn't the same act as making a decree back home. After all, a vote in the USCCB may involve some policy compromise that a bishop would not choose to make if establishing a policy for his own diocese.

Can you say ... ego? ;)

Hence, all of this confusion is exactly why I defer to the standpoint of "the bishops are over us, Rome is over the bishops. Let Rome deal with the bishops if they are doing something wrong."

And, as to David Andrew's comments about leading souls astray, as much as I genuinely DO believe that texts with hereasy or bad liturgical practices very much can lead souls away from the Lord and from heaven, I don't believe that singing "Jesus, Bread of Life" as opposed to "Lamb of God" three times will lead souls to damnation.

Paix, maybe it might do well to re-read that document that Blessed John Paul II authored on episcopal conferences. If memory serves, Blessed John Paul II took an entire conference to task on the issue of their lax granting of general absolution to the faithful when no emergency conditions existed.

The fact remains that while parts of SttL are a vast improvement over Music in Catholic Worship, there are parts that do contradict the authoritative documents of the Holy See. When this happens, Rome trumps any conference document, moreso since this one does not bear any recognitio from the Holy See.

Actually, both of you MAKE my point. Where there is a problem, Rome has intervened, taken the appropriate people to task, and set things straight. And that is all fine and well.

Unless and until an issue is clarified, as in the baptism issue, or a bishop is removed due to heresay, I will continue to defer to his judgement as the particular law in his diocese, and I will not out of hand dismiss the collegial declarations of the conference.

Many people don't like Roger Mahoney or Matthew Clark in Rochester. But both were validly ordained, then appointed bishops. In the case of Matthew Clark, he knelt before Blessed John Paul II, who personally consecrated him a bishop and appointed him to the Rochester See. I would think long and hard before ascribing any nefarious or subversive motives to these or any men in their position.

The Church is made of falliable people; things are practiced for years and then declared an "abuse" - and that's fine, because we are to be obedient. But there really IS an ebb and flow, and the Church eventually corrects things gone astray.

Can you say ... ego? ;)

Insofar as STTL is a partial-walkback of the execrable Music in Worship, I think that it was not so much 'ego' as the beginning of a return to Rome (so to speak).

The USCC has a large faction of solid Bishops who knew that something had to be done about the situation, but not quite large enough to make the document wholly acceptable to Rome.

Ergo, they issued the "halfway home" STTL to help musicians such as those who congregate here.

DougS

Yes... I remember all that hoopla. Thanks for reminding us!

http://musicasacra.com/sttl/

(Thank you, again, prof. Mahrt for your insights.)

awr

aha.

i stand corrected.

is your clarification that the US bishops said to each other, "let's not even try to have this approved?" while all along that was their original intention? if so what was said to change their thinking? what i am confused about is if you (a US contingent) went to Rome for pre-approval, why wouldn't the US have taken the final measure to fix the draft so that it could receive final approval? isn't that kind of like building a bridge without having the funds (or foresight) to finish the project?

please clarify.

and also, no one ever stands for a hymn after communion. why is that even in there?

Because GIRM 88 says so.

Francis,
I can't speak for the bishops or speculate why they didn't do this or that.
I only want to clarify the facts:
Rome was shown SttL and never said anything negative about it. At the meeting I attended, the CDW officially praised the US church for its great interest in liturgy and its production of a document like SttL.
The US bishops decided at the last instant not to vote SttL in as law (requiring Roman confirmation) because they realized this would have meant altering other documents. I can speculate that because this was immediately before the conference vote, there wasn't time to alter SttL. Or perhaps they wanted SttL to say what it says, but didn't want to have to re-vote on any earlier documents where they differed. Perhaps they thought SttL makes sense on standing for postcommunion hymn (I personally think so). But this is also speculation. I can only state the facts I know: Rome praised SttL, and never criticized it.
Pax,
awr

PS We always stand for the postcommunion hymn at the monastery - it's generally a vigorous strophic hymn led by organ, and standing makes more sense.

Brilliant, Francis. On your wavelength, believe it or not.