Papal Legislation on Sacred Music
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    Dear Colleagues:

    I wish to begin a discussion here around a significant writing, "Papal Legislation on Sacred Music". The Author is Robert F. Hayburn, Mus.D.

    I am about 100 pages into the text, and as I continue to formulate the Constitution for the Society for the reformation of sacred music in the RC Church, and to promote its goodness as one of her lowly servants, it is most important to understand the seriousness and severity of the attack on most sacred an office that has occurred and continues to occur over our long history, and how the abuses must be addressed. Even more importantly, the office of those Catholic musicians who uphold and promote the plainchant of the Church must be encouraged to continue in our mission to protect and defend the very patrimony of our faith, and to truly value the progeny that proceeds forth from her, namely, the sacred chant of the DO and the Mass.

    Those who promote novel ideas and music that go against our efforts to restore the good praise that is fitting to the sanctuary must be abolished and cast out. (specifically their ideas, and the fruits of them... publications, promotions, etc.)

    In order to excite devotion to our cause I wish to post snippets from the writings of our Pontiff's, from their Councils, encyclicals, documents, historicals accounts and more.

    The battle for the soul of humanity is heavily weighed in the balance of music, and especially the music of our Church. Let us continue to press forward in restoring what rightfully belongs and not fear to call to account those who would influence us to think differently or turn us away from our cause in musica sacra.

    Posts to follow very soon.
  • Mark P.
    Posts: 248
    The translation of the rubrics for the Graduale Romanum of 1974 is one of the great features of this book by Msgr. Hayburn. I wish these rubrics were more widely disseminated and understood.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    Mark:

    Are you referencing pages 571-573? Which paragraphs (passages) in particular shall we disseminate?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    Battle over the Propers and abuses of the liturgy... sound familiar?

    "Pope Innocent the 12th proclaimed an edict, which called attention to previous decrees of popes... Here again, specific rules were given for choir directors, who were admonished to be sure that they conform to the regulation of this new edict"

    His Holiness has come to know that in some churches they were not using music which was in accordance with the order published by His Holiness, Pope Alexander VII. This same Pope had issued a Bull on April 23, 1657, and this Bull was reiterated by His Holiness, Pope Innocent XI on September 3, 1678.

    His Holiness, Pope Innocent XII has, therefore, ordered the Vicar General of Rome to call together all the choir directors and to speak to them about the correct observance of the orders given in the above-mentioned Bull. Some of these choir directors have interpreted differently these laws about the compositions to be used for Masses and Vespers.

    His Holiness has stated that these rules apply to all churches and Basilicas, even the Patriarchal Basilicas, and also to the Collegiate and Parochial churches, to Colleges and convents of all Congregations, to secular or religious groups of clergy, Confraternities and even the National ones, hospitals and arch-hospitals, pious places, and even those which belong to laymen, in the great city of Rome.

    To leave no room for misunderstanding we now declare that his Holiness does not in any way permit or allow any motet or song to be sung during mass unless it pertains to the mass itself such as e.g., the Introit the Gradual and the Offertory which belong to each and during Vespers his Holiness permits only those antiphons which come before and after the Psalms, and the should be sung without any alteration.

    The musicians should conform themselves totally to the ecclesiastical rules which pertain to the choir and just as the choir itself is not allowed to add anything to the office or Mass, so too, this is likewise prohibited to the musicians.

    His Holiness will allow some Motets to be sung during the Elevation of the Mass and during the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, in order to nourish the devotion of the faithful. These Motets may be taken from the Hymns of St. Thomas, or from the Antiphons of the Breviary, the offical Roman Missal, and the Mass which is celebrated during the Solemnity of the Blessed Sacrament. However, the words of these same Hymns must not be changed.

    We, therefore, wish this to be known that after this Declaration has been made known to these directors of choirs that if they will compose music or will perform compositions contrarty to these orders, that We will proceed without hesitation to apply the penalites contained in these orders, and that these orders are renewed as of now by this Declaration. And if necessary we will apply other penalties, even corporal ones, and these will be given according to the discretion of His Holiness and also our discretion."
  • Mark P.
    Posts: 248
    Not having the book in front of me, I'd suggest the rubrics for how the various chants are to be rendered. For example, the Introit may be chanted antiphon-psalm verse-antiphon or, if needed, antiphon alone. The Alleluia, if memory serves, is to be chanted all the way through by the cantors and then repeated by the schola. This is different from the EF where the Alleluia is sung by the cantors only to the asterisk and then the schola repeats and sings the entire jubilus.

    I know this is tiresomely non-specific but I'm operating from memory.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    Ah yes... I believe you are speaking about the rules for a sung Mass in the beginning of the book of the Graduale Romanum. I wonder if they might be online?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    Mark:

    Here is the translation of the 1908, of which the 1974 is the revised edition. I don't have a 1974, but am expecting one for Christmas. Otherwise, the rubrics for the 1974 are on page 573 of the book we are discussing.

    http://musicasacra.com/pdf/musicrubrics_ef.pdf
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    I translated the 1974 Graduale instructions here:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/26138173/Introduction-to-Ordo-Cantus-Missae-Graduale-Romanum

    They were copied from the Ordo Cantus Missae.
  • Darcy
    Posts: 73
    Mr. Chonak, thanks for that translation. It seems like bits and pieces of the rubrics for sacred music have made it into the GIRM, but not all. Some were incredibly specific (for instance on how and when to repeat the invocations of the Kyrie). And I don't remember ever hearing the sequence sung after the Alleluia. Usually it's done after the 2nd reading at our parish. Very interesting.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    If I remember right, the GIRM's instruction about the Sequence is to present it before the Alleluia.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    yes

    we do it then
  • Mark P.
    Posts: 248
    Mr. Chonak,

    Your translation of the Ordo Cantus Missae is exactly what I was looking for. It seems to me that at one time, the Sequence could be rendered after the Alleluia if it were an extension of the jubilus. Now the GIRM puts it after the second reading. There was some back and forth on this between various iterations of the GIRM but now it's clear that the Sequence is to be sung after the second reading.

    I would really encourage people to familiarize themselves with the options found in Mr. Chonak's document regarding singing the Proper.
  • Darcy
    Posts: 73
    Yes, from the revised GIRM:

    64. The Sequence, which is optional except on Easter Sunday and on Pentecost Day, is sung before the Alleluia.
  • ElizabethS
    Posts: 47
    I got this book for Christmas and am reading just as fast as I can! What a wonderful resource to have. Am currently on the chapter regarding the Ratisbon edition of the chant books.

    To Mr. Chonak: THANK YOU for the translation. It will be immensely helpful.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    The approval decree for the Ordo Cantus Missae, given in 1972 and again with another decree in 1986, says that it's binding for Masses celebrated in Latin, so I would follow the OCM's directions about the Sequence in that case: after the Alleluia.

    In other cases, it appears one has to follow the GIRM's contrary instruction.
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    The approval decree for the Ordo Cantus Missae, given in 1972 and again with another decree in 1986, says that it's binding for Masses celebrated in Latin, so I would follow the OCM's directions about the Sequence in that case: after the Alleluia.

    Except that the 2002 GIRM, which was issued in Latin and is also binding for Masses celebrated in Latin, provides: "Sequentia, quae praeter quam diebus Paschae et Pentecostes, est ad libitum, cantatur ante Allelúia." The decree of issuance directs: "Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus." Therefore the Ordo Cantus Missae has been repealed and superseded in all respects in which it may conflict with the GIRM presently in force, such as on the question of when the Sequence is sung.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    Some people might think that the Church gave no exceptions about the sequence in the first GIRM (1970), then granted an exception for Latin in 1972 in the OCM, took it away with the GIRM 2nd edition, granted it again in 1986 (OCM 2nd edition), and took it away again in 2002 (GIRM 3rd edition).

    However, that would sound silly.

    The Church has an established way of interpreting contradictory documents, and it is not a superficial literalism. It involves principles like this:

    In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them. (can. 21)


    You have to look at the history of the documents and see what changed when. If the "Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus" is not new in the 3rd edition, but is merely repeated from the 2nd edition, then it doesn't apply to the permissions granted between the 2nd and 3rd edition. They remain in force, unless they are specifically revoked.

    It is amazing how *permissive* the Church is about lots of things, for better or worse.
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    The GIRM itself, prior to 2002, stated that the sequence was to be sung after the Alleluia. So no "exceptions" were necessary -- the OCM does not represent an "exception for Latin" or any sort of indult that would have to be specially repealed; it was quite in agreement with the GIRM. Even as late as the 2000 edition, the GIRM prescribed the Sequence after the Alleluia. But when "cantatur post Alleluia" is deliberately changed to "cantatur ante Alleluia," there can be no further harmonization. Imagine that the Vatican issued a document today about the functions of the deacon which happens to mention that after the Our Father he invites the people to exchange the Sign of Peace, and then ten years later a new edition of the Missal is issued that moves the Sign of Peace to before the Offertory. Do we have "contradictory documents" that need to be "harmonized" (perhaps by allowing deacons, but not priests, to keep on doing the Sign of Peace after the Our Father if they like it better that way)? No, we have an old, descriptive document which was accurate when it was written, but which time has now passed by.

    Similarly, the OCM made sense at the time, since it correctly described the liturgical law in force. But that law has changed. In order to enforce this change, Rome ought not to have to issue a whole new edition of the OCM just to change this one word. Under your theory, what exactly do they have to do to convince you that they mean it?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    You've argued that the GIRM pre-2002 placed the Sequence after the Alleluia, but I am not persuaded about this point: I will have to see a copy of the GIRM prior to 2002 that supports your contention, since I am looking at two hand missals from 1974 and 1975 with the Sequence presented before the Alleluia (New American Sunday Missal, Collins; and St Joseph Weekday Missal, Catholic Book Publishing).

    Is there a possibility that the 1970 GIRM placed the Sequence before the Alleluia, and the 1975 GIRM placed it afterward? Not so clear: My copy of the '75 GIRM (the English version in Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, also here) doesn't specify one way or the other. It would help to see the corresponding Latin version, but I don't have it. Do you happen to?
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,092
    It wasn't clear. But the typical edition in the US did place it before the Alleluia; this was not necessarily true everywhere. The 2000 initial version of the GIRM placed it after the Alleluia; the 2002 change to place it before the Alleluia was quite deliberate.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    Here are some additional materials on the topic:
    1969 GIRM (Latin) (not the 1970): has no clear specifics about Sequence before or after Alleluia, but discusses Sequence after Alleluia.
    1975 GIRM (Latin) Same.

    A web page by Australian writer John Lilburne says:
    The 1975 GIRM 40 was not specific, but the Lectionary seems to have had the Sequence sung before the Alleluia. But the 2000 GIRM had it after the Alleluia. The 2002 GIRM returns it to before the Alleluia.

    Interestingly, he says that the 2000 GIRM never became law (maybe he means: in Australia). (And yet on another page, he treats it as law in 2002.)

    A doctoral candidate at the Anselmo has written a thorough two-part article about the placement of the Sequence:
    part 1
    part 2

    In 2011, Mass at St. Peter's Basilica placed the sequence first (starting at 30 minutes into the video).
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    this subject came up on another thread and I am bumping it up again. Trying to find the pieces I already digitized.
    \
    found em... here are some.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    Pope Innocent the 12th wrote in 1692 to leave no room for misunderstanding we now declare that his Holiness does not in any way permit or allow any motet or song to be sung during mass unless it pertains to the mass itself such as easy.G.the introit the gradual and the offertory which belong to each and during vespers his Holiness permits only those antiphons which come before and after the Psalms and the should be song without any alteration
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    The fathers of the Council of Toledo in 1566 after a long exposition of the qualities of the chance of the church conclude as follows is absolutely necessary to avoid all that is theatrical in the music used for the chance of divine praises and everything that evokes per frame themes of love or warrior feeds gear to classical music
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    Numerous and learned riders severely condemn the patient tolerance and churches of theatrical music and chance and asked that such abuse be banished from them
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    It's so happens much to our great sorrow that the abuse of the theatrical manner and the noise of the stage enters into parts of the mass which is lawful to say and which is Djali song during massive vespers as has been noted above that is the glory of Crudo the intro at the gradual hill for Tori and the rest
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    Artifice is sought for in the primary desire to prancing his lost it interests us in stores or curiosity but in reality we neglect devotion what in fact is this new method and swing to chance if not a comedy and which centers are changed and actors the exhibit themselves first one then to finally altogether converse was just each other through chance then again one dominates above a little later the others follow
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    But here we shall satisfy ourselves by remembering and taking into account the prescriptions of the sacred councils and the opinions of renowned writers if it is true as we are told that the figure of music of theaters is executed in socialists offered to all those listening to a sense of delight and have them enjoy the rhythm melody and music itself and that those present get pleasure out of the sweetness of the various voices without proceeding in most cases the exact meaning of the words. This must not be so its ecclesiastical chant fax for this is the opposite must be so
    \
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    PLEASE FORGIVE!!!!!

    These are speech to text files which translated sloppily, but gives you the gist of what was being addressed.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    The musicians should conform themselves totally to the ecclesiastical rules which pertain to the choir and just as the choir itself is not allowed to add anything to the office or mass so too this is like was prohibited to the musicians
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    Not without grief and soul have relearned in addition that Christian drummers flute players and players of other musical instruments or invited to the festivals and sacrifices of articles to play because of the appearance of it being a public service which the musicians agree to perform seeing they have talent nor is it an easy thing for missionaries to turn them away from this to testable abuse considering the matter and pondering what great response we would have to make to god if we should not on our part call those Christians away from the owner and service of demons to commend them that they dare not in the future play or saying neither in pagan temples more near them weather on the occasion of her soccer farce or find someone to be informed with superstition.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    In the first Council of Milan held near 1565. We read the following profane errors must not be song or played at the Divine office or in the churches sacred chance without languid inflections must be song guttural sounds must not take place of labial ones never must have a passionate character let Shanta musically serious developed clear suitable to God's house and divine praise executed in such a matter but those who listen to it understand the words and be moved
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    We also said that all condemn theatrical chance and churches and want a distinction made between the sacred chance of the church and the profane chant of the theater everyone knows St. Jerome's text cited in the can come contest just 92 until just as someone to spend Cordy Boose Rich restore Mino let the adolescent listen to this let those who are bound to somebody in church listen to it to honor God it is not enough to sing with the voice is also necessary to send with a heart neither must want a new Winchester… With ointment as theatrical actors do to produce theatrical melodies and songs in Church St. Jerome's authority was abusively and vote for those who 20 – Asley wanted to remove from church
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    Encyclical quote only quantum of March 10, 1791 minus the sixth the principal office of cannons was to pay dearly a common tribute of praise to the supreme being or chanting songs call the deacon in his biography of the Bishops of minutes gives us a proof of this in his book we read that the Bishop sure to ground and only train just clergy and the study of God's law but you took care to have them learn Roman chance and ordered them to conform to the customs and practices of the Roman Church
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    Selea this is also this opinion as he writes in his work rhetorically Chelis just musicians allow me to say here that the present day a kind of Chet has crept into the temple which is new Ecentric broken up with a swing and certainly for from religious is more suitable for the theater and dance halls
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    Hey modern rider Benedict Jerome said you Master Gen. of the Benedictine order in Spain in his the actual critical universe Soleil sermon 14 supported the principals and science of musical notes indicated the message to be followed to correct church music compositions and give them a character altogether different from that of the theatrical musical concerts
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    The clergy were not inspired by games and profane amusements to produce the tone and modulation of religious music but by the fathers of the old and new testament close to pretend that the chanting of Psalms form to divine worship must be ejected from the bosom of the church such innovators agree perfectly with her head to spirit of darkness the source of every iniquity who tries to do naturalized and crop the meaning of the sacred Scripture by malignant interpretations
  • Andris Amolins
    Posts: 154
    Francis, thanks, but could you, please, edit the texts you have posted?

    "The musicians should conform themselves totally to the ecclesiastical rules which pertain to the choir and just as the choir itself is not allowed to add anything to the office or Mass, so too, this is likewise prohibited to the musicians."


    I find interesting and significant the distinction between "choir" and "musicians". This could helped some discussions about interpreting 20th century decrees, viz., male vs. mixed choir, placement in organ loft vs. sanctuary, vestures etc.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,816
    am sorry about the dragon translations... speech to text app. there is so much amazing stuff, don't know where to begin
Add a Comment