This is from De musica sacra et sacra liturgia, Instruction on Sacred Music and Sacred Liturgy, Sacred Congregation for Rites – September 3, 1958:

“71. The use of automatic instruments and machines, such as the automatic organ, phonograph, radio, tape or wire recorders, and other similar machines, is absolutely forbidden in liturgical functions and private devotions, whether they are held inside or outside the church, even if these machines be used only to transmit sermons or sacred music, or to substitute for the singing of the choir or faithful, or even just to support it.”

If the Spanish are doing it, you can probably 'get away" with it, if that's your standard. But the text above doesn't seem to allow any wiggle room.

I am the Liturgy Police, mwahaha!
http://jeffreyquick.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/st-mary-st-joseph-newton-falls-oh

Holy Moly!! We've been using an electric organ for years in the Grotto for Feast of the Assumption! I wonder if my very traditional musician pastor knows? Should I tell him? {evil grin}

>>the keys of the organ goes up and down and changes the registrations too.

They have a harpsichord like that in the Haunted Mansion at Disney World.

Interesting... A couple years ago when I was in Miami, Archbishop Favalora (at the time) had instructed parishes to play a video of him (and others) - I happened to see it twice - at one parish as part of the homily and at another after communion - addressing all congregations at the start of the annual charity appeal. I would say that would count as transmitting a recorded sermon.

Noel, I KNEW that was you behind the mask! I love SoF reports!
Ap. Favalora video....argggh, for many reasons.
As regards the serious aspects concerning "live" performance issues, I recall back in the mid-seventies WLP had an octavo motet by SF State composer Herbert Bielewa that was meant to be chorally sung with a tape recording of ambient sounds (I assume some sort of Moog and/or concrete assemblage.) I don't think it was a best seller for them, but it did make their choral sampler book that year. That sticks in my memory as I found it interesting that Omer Westendorf thought it worthy as some sort of momentous intersection of contemporaneous art with sacred choral tradition. But of course, we have hindsight to realize that "experiment" had more than sonic dissonance, but also that of the obvious fact the medium called attention to itself.
The one sure thing that receives a consensus endorsement in these here parts is that the live human voice remains the only instrument elevated above all others as "ideal" for praising God, again for obvious reasons. But from there, we still have issues over whether voices singing in unison monophony best exemplifies that ideal; witness the monk's cliche that chanting went downhill when some wiseguy in a habit decided to break off into organum. So, we're back to unison: does that mean if we all sing "Abba Father" a capella in unison that ideal is upheld? Hmmm?
My point, and I do have one, is that discretion in all our matters liturgical can lead to valor. Okay, the taped Bielewa piece was indulgent. But there aren't some heavy metal Life Teen Bands, all playing "live" at Mass that, however noble of intent, ultimately are distractive from fit worship? Wobbly soprano sections? Organists who use tremulant unceasingly? So, industrial liturgical karaoke? No!!! Playerless organ sequences for hymn accompaniment? No!!!
A homegrown sequence of integral sound that elevates the singing voices in a reverent and potentially profound way? That's innovation. Maybe I need to use some discrimination and discretion before I answer that one.

I recall Salvatore Martirano telling of an electronic piece he had written for a friend's wedding, to take place in a church in Italy. During the rehearsal, the priest interrupted the music, "You can't play that here; it's an affront to God!"
"What kind of music does God like?"
"Gregorian chant." Well, it happened that there was Gregorian chant in the piece. When it was pointed out to the priest, he said, "God only likes Gregorian chant as used in the masses of Palestrina."
"God has pretty narrow tastes, doesn't He?"
"Yes, God does."

As a composer, I'd like all boundaries to be open. And the history of Catholic church music is of composers pushing the envelope, in both positive and negative ways. But as a Catholic church musician, I'm aware that 95% of all Catholic church music performances could be replaced with recordings for an immediate aesthetic and budgetary improvement. There's certainly a different of intent between Bielawa's tape and Your Favorite Catholic Publisher's accompaniment tracks, but could you write that difference into church law? I'd be happy not to be able to do certain things musically, if it means that church musicians remain employed; this is one of the few situations where the Church's social teaching is applied to musicians. And I'd like to continue to praise God with my art, in a live situation, inadequate though my musicianship might be to the task.

Adam, to save you redoing the job: "Abba Father" was already adapted into Latin by a seminarian at the NAC back in the '80s:

"Abba, Abba Pater / Tu es nos figulus; / Argilla sumus / et opus tuum. /
Forma, forma et finge nos / in tui imaginem / Filii Iesu / Filii Iesu. /
Gloria, Gloria lausque / tibi in saecula / saeculorum, amen; / saeculorum, amen.
Abba!"

I know Cardinal Maida used to have taped addresses sent out to all parishes in the Archdiocese once a year. Have not heard anything like it from our new Archbishop.

Adam

Abba Father is beyond improving in any language.

Boy, this brought out the best in everyone!

In general, I dislike "karaoke offertories," as one person once put it, but then a very nice quiet lady surprised everyone by standing up and singing a beautiful simple song accompanied by a recording of an accompaniment on damped guitar strings. But the mention of guitar raises all the same issues: in seems that the guitar is used to produce beautiful, contemplative music, except in Christian Churches. You can buy "Music Minus One" recordings for Brahms lieder, but you don't hear anything of that caliber in Church. Anything that's not from the Catholic Tradition, it shows up in Church in its kitschiest, least appealing form. Why? Well...

The Church document cited is from 1958. Surely things have changed. Our Cardinal uses a fully-produced recorded homily when he kicks off the annual appeal---choirs oohing, and all that. He's pretty well noted for doing things by the book. I have never heard him say Mass with anything other than the Roman Canon, e.g., so I was wondering if there are any more recent church documents.

As for Spanish music, I moved to the border of a Hispanic neighborhood and simply could not hear the beauty of Spanish music. I deliberately set out to learn about it, in part because I took seriously JPII's injunction to see the beauty in all cultures. I now play commendable congas, but, if you are talking about Central America, there's a lot of what we call "bad taste," and I am not sure we are the best judges of how they are hearing it.

my name's Kenneth

WHAT'S THE FREQUENCY?!?!


sorry. I'm sorry.

Adam, you must have been one precocious kid to remember that old Dan Rather chestnut!

Or an R.E.M. fan! See here!

Wow, this has gone an interesting direction...

Nothing more recent on the topic that I'm aware of.

The Church's restriction on pre-recorded (etc.) has everything to do with HUMAN participation, e.g., conforming oneself to Christ in offering self to God, which is the definition of "actuosa participatio" according to liturgy experts who are not rupture-bound.

Thus, the voice--one's own--is primary; the piped organ is next, with "other" instruments third.

In no case did the Church contemplate remote-controlled instruments, which are obviously not "self"-offerings, but are "mechanical." It's not a coincidence that one cannot "attend" Mass over television, or via radio, folks.

It's personal, or it's not "participatio."

Simple, no?

Of course the ancient world had automatic instruments. There were steam-powered "music box" type machines, and of course there were a good many steam-powered twittering birds that "sang" tunes. These were used in pagan temples and in secular imperial settings. They were not used in Jewish or Christian worship. Later on, in medieval times, there was extensive use of water-driven and clockwork musical machinery. Churches didn't use it for anything but clocks and festive special effects (most often on the outside of the church, though occasionally with indoor church clocks).

And then there were slave musicians of every kind, hired out. There were times when the Church dabbled in some very dubious stuff, but I don't think anybody has ever permitted masters to hire out slave musicians for church music. Neither did Jewish tradition. This was not true of most pagan traditions.

A live instrument played by a live musician, from Jewish and early Christian times on, has often been used as a symbol of the relationship between body and soul, or between God and the believer. To play a live instrument is to be joyful; to sing is to be joyful and wise, and to be like a lover.

Secular music has its own ways of doing things and much broader discretion, as we know.

But when it comes to liturgical religious music? Using pre-programmed synth, or pre-recorded accompaniment tracks, is pretty much the same as declaring that God doesn't work with us on a free will basis, or of using slave musicians. It's not joyful in a spiritual sense; it's chained. It distrusts God and one's own skills, as if saying that a canned supposed-perfection is better than personal prayer and personal offering. It's like paying somebody to kiss your husband better than you can alone. It's like telling people that it would be better for them to stay home and just pay professional Massgoers to go to Mass for them. Better no music than this kind of sacrilege.

But of course, the only reason people do it is because they don't know any better. People aren't used to thinking the way the Church through history has thought.

Maureen, you've done an EXCELLENT job there!

It was terrible!
This is the sort of thing that happens when you have a culture completely convinced that you can't sing without accompaniment.
There's an Episcopal parish in this Diocese that does the midi-through-organ thing at their Saturday evening service every single week.
Goodness gracious!

Thanks Francis I would like to share it with my ladies schola!

I need to bring this up again because the school music teacher here asked me this morning about playing a recorded accompaniment for a song the 2nd-graders will sing during on their upcoming First Communion Mass. Apparently she doesn't have a copy of the accompaniment music.

Does something like this apply? I am not in charge of selecting, teaching, or directing this song (she can tend to pick things that I wouldn't necessarily choose), so I'm not sure what type of piece it is. I told her I would "check with Father" (who says he prefers no recorded tracks, although if he knew the details perhaps he'd okay this one).

I'm not sure how big of a deal to make of it...

Does the directive from the 1958 document (second post in this thread) still completely apply? As others have mentioned in this thread, recorded homilies to give a message from the bishop seem to be commonly used (something forbidden according to that quote).

The directive was reaffirmed in 1967 and 1977, though with -- alas -- one exception. The Congregation for Divine Worship stated in its newsletter Notitiae (volume 13, 1977, number 94):

The entire liturgy rests upon the use of signs and to be effective these signs must be authentic and truthful. The reform and sensitive adaptation of the liturgy has this as one of its main purposes. Sacred music and singing are signs and signs that are to be expressed as authentic and truthful by a living, praying, congregation of the faithful, not by a simulated congregation. Already in 1958 Pope Pius XII's Instruction De musica sacra et sacra Liturgia stated the principle that sound equipment is most useful for the learning of chants and for supporting voices during open-air processions, but that they are barred from celebrations "in a place of worship". Since that time the norms in official documents have not been changed. The one exception is the Directory for Masses with Children, which mentions use of recorded music, with, however, due caution and prudence. It is not by chance that the recent instruction of the bishops of Italy on Masses with children clearly states that the use of music which consists exclusively in recorded singing is unlawful.

This is quoted in Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, p. 134.

I like Fr. Peter Gee's answer to this question, which was simply, "The Mass is something living."

Actually Charles in CenCA does provide leadership for First Communions in the parochial school and for RE classes, and all music accompaniment is live. At this point in time, the repertoire isn't CMAA standard faire, but I can assure you, the level of singing by the school and CCD kids is quite exemplary, whether accompanied by guitar/piano (normal practice) and organ by my principal organist.
I would have them sing a capella before using a karaoke CD.
The only caveat one could argue, and I'm choosing not to argue it here and now, is the use of "home-grown" sequencing that was available to the musical consumer, not just academia. At the time of the ban on taped recordings, the concept of sequencing had not been realized. Yet at one quick review of JMO's quote, the last sentence refers specifically to "recorded singing," not accompaniment. Kind of like that fourth option, cantus=chant or song ambiguity that gives us such fits.
Back to our regular scheduled programming.

dan rather, mannequin priests bursting into flame (extremely chuckle-worthy) and Adam's-too-funny-hijinks-with-his-midi-file.....now the episode with the msgr. on good friday who thought the music I programmed was "too depressing" seems so minor......thank you....