Additionally:

It seems that in lieu of organ music should be choral or congregational music, especially if the selections are in keeping with the character of the liturgy and the season. Absolute silence might be employed depending on the congregation's comfort with it, but we live in a culture that is very uncomfortable with silence.

In the parishes I'm situated, the organ prelude is eliminated during Advent except for Gaudete Sunday (III Advent) and for Immaculate Conception. But I do employ muted organ accompaniment at Communion after the sung selection, as well as muted and less frantic postludes — accompanied silence, as it were — working with an ear towards complete compliance with the Church's norms on a gradual basis, season by season.

I'm curious to know just how many cathedral church parishes, under the watchful eye of the diocesan director of liturgy and music, eliminates organ during Advent and Lent? Or, how many bishops and priests adhere to the other norms set forth in Musicam sacram, such as the chanting of all of the dialogues between celebrant and people? This, after all, is specified in MS:

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 toward 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.

Clearly, the reference to use of the organ in Advent notwithstanding, there are plenty of cases, perhaps in our own churches, where the priest does NOT chant those parts specified in Para. 29, while elements of 30 and 31 are employed every Sunday. Does this not constitute a violation of the legislation every bit as much as inclusion of preludes and postludes in Advent? Does it make any sense, therefore, to adhere so scrupulously to the prohibition of the use of the organ in Advent, while ignoring these? After all, the elements of Para 29 truly impact the "full, active and conscious participation of the Faithful" by joining themselves with the priest in the action at the altar. The presence or absence of organ music does not, except perhaps in the minds of those who are familiar with the documents.

Ultimately, to engage in this kind of debate is much like arguing about how to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. There are other, more important elements of the Mass that are being ignored or subjected to abuse in many parishes. I'll wager that concern over the use or exclusion of the organ in Advent and Lent doesn't rate high on that list for many of us.

I don't play preludes or postludes. If the Communion or Offertory hymns (yes, still using 4 hymn sandwich here, though with faux propers at one Mass) end early I do a short improvisation on it and then end it earlier than I would during Ordinary Time.

O God help us find our way out of the darkness please.

David:

You make a good case for your approach to the use of the organ in Advent.

Still, there is a difference between the prohibition of the organ in Advent (except the third Sunday) and the degrees of the incorporation of music in Musicam Sacram. The prohibition of the organ in Advent (and Lent) is a long-standing tradition; in the old rite it was a foregone conclusion that the organ would not be played in Advent. The three degrees in Musicam Sacram should be read in the context of the introduction to the section which states that the distinction between the low and the high Mass is to be retained, but for the sake of gradually introducing more music these degrees are set forth. Sing to the Lord has proposed that these degrees are degrees of solemnity and should be used to distinguish greater feasts from lesser ones. I think that is at least not justified in the text of MS; moreover, the distinction of seasons in the old rite was achieved by other means--no flowers, no organ, purple vestments, etc.--not by eliminating the singing of some texts. The cue to the status of these degrees as slightly less than binding, as paradigm to be adapted, is in the last paragraph of the section, which concedes that even in a low Mass, some of the sung parts of the Mass can e used. So it authorizes the singing of some of the parts of the proper or ordinary, even when the priest does not sing anything.

The most recent position is stated in GIRM 2000 + USA Adaptations == GIRM 2003
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

313. The organ and other lawfully approved musical instruments are to be placed in an appropriate place so that they can sustain the singing of both the choir and the congregation and be heard with ease by all if they are played alone. It is appropriate that, before being put into liturgical use, the organ be blessed according to the rite described in the Roman Ritual.[124]

In Advent the organ and other musical instruments should be used with a moderation that is consistent with the season’s character and does not anticipate the full joy of the Nativity of the Lord.

In Lent the playing of the organ and musical instruments is allowed only to support the singing. Exceptions are Laetare Sunday (Fourth Sunday of Lent), solemnities, and feasts.

Liturgical Music Document Literacy Challenge
http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2182

To the above statement: "The prohibition of the organ in Advent (and Lent) is a long-standing tradition; in the old rite it was a foregone conclusion that the organ would not be played in Advent", I would ask: does this mean the prohibition of all organ playing, or just the prohibition of solo organ playing? I was always under the impression (which seems entirely consistent with the official documents' proclamations noted earlier in this thread) that organ accompaniment could be, with discretion, used during the relevant seasons.

While this thread specifically treats the issue of the organ, I was very dismayed when I heard the regular live broadcast of the Sunday Mass from our Cathedral yesterday morning. Not only were the Mariachis playing at full blown fury, they also managed to make a debacle of "O Come, O Come Emmanuel". The music is supposed to be subdued during Advent. What upsets me is that the Cathedral is supposed to set the standard for liturgy in the diocese. It is not, in my opinion, leading by example.

Errmmmm.....think of Advent as what it is: anticipatory of the Great Light of Christmas.

In almost any dramatic realization of "waiting," such is done in relative silence. Not complete silence. "Hushed" might be the best word.

(Lent is different--it's penitential, so the organ which always stood for 'joy' should be silent.)

Church musicians, generally speaking, think of music as the sine qua non of "church." That's just not correct.

No, Bach wasn't Catholic. I find it difficult to fit some of those Lutheran works into a Catholic mass. If I actually liked him, I might try harder, but it is what it is.

Advent: No postludes, accompany hymns and choir, and play soft music at communion. I don't do preludes, either. It is difficult to tone it down when the congregation sees Advent as 4 weeks of shopping before Christmas.

...a shame...

Indeed, it is.
However, most modern-day Lutherans (many of whom are really 'Baptist Lutherans') would think the liturgy at Leipzig or Luebeck at Bach's and Buxtehude's time was down-rite papistical. A true Lutheran would know that he has much more in common with the Catholic Church than with any Protestant church. There are, scattered here and there, Lutheran equivalents of the Anglo-Catholics, some of whom wish for a 'Lutheran Ordinariate' - the which, I've heard, Rome has said is not going to happen.
_______________________________

As for Bach's (or any other Lutheran's) music at Catholic liturgy, well, we use it all the time, do we not? We sing Lutheran chorales as hymns and anthems. Many are the German Lutheran motets that are suitable for Catholic liturgy, And, for a great solemnity one could not do better than Bach's magnificent double-choir motet, Singet dem Herrn, ein neues lied (Psalm CXLIX, et al.), as an offertory offering. For many, Advent would not be complete without Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme or Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland (which just happens to be a German version of Ambrose of Milan's Veni redemptor gentium); and Holy Week would be incomplete without the 'Passion Chorale', O Haupt, woll blut und wunden. Christmas, too, is well graced with Kommst du nun, Jesu, vom Himmel herunter (if you can play it!), not to mention Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her, or that justly beloved macaronic carol, In dulci jubilo. One could hardly find a grander organ voluntary for Mary feasts than Bach's fuga sopra il Magnificat - with the tonus perigrinus as cantus firmus. And as for other organ chorales and free organ works, playing them when their texts or moods are appropriate to the Lectionary is not to be discouraged - even though few in the pews would make the connexion. But neither, unfortunately, would they make the connexion of an organ work based on a Gregorian hymn-tune matched with the Lectionary. Our people are astonishingly poorly catechised and, for all intents and purposes, are simply ignorant (yes, ignorant!) of their patrimony of church music. And this is the grievous (nay, the MOST grievous) fault of the clerical order, and our seminaries and schools - which is no reason for US to sink so low rather than to build up, to aedify, to enrich.
_________________________________

As a 'post-script' to what I wrote above, it occurs to me that, regardless of confessional origin, there are certain musics (and, indeed, other of the arts) which are so profound as expressions of human and Christian faith and spirituality that they transcend confessional boundaries, that they have become the property of all. This includes them being the property of the Catholic Church, too, insofar as they have not a negative, but, rather, a positive relationship with Catholic truth. Exemplary of this assertion would be much of the Anglican choral tradition, much of the German organ and choral tradition, and other artful and literary treasures culled from here and there. Even if one were to find a Buddhist saying that happened to express a Catholic truth, it would be, ipso facto, Catholic. As I have argued many times elsewhere, what is not expressive of non-Catholic falsehood, what, indeed, states Catholic truth, IS, regardless of its origin, CATHOLIC, and shares in the patrimony common to all of Christendom.

Germans have a right to be 'despoiled', just as much as the Egyptians.

How does any of the above relate to the original question: using the organ during Lent!

Henry, you don't know us very well. We are incapable of staying on topic for very long. ;-)