This is outstanding. I have been trying to find well-written, concise answers to so many of these questions, and here's they are!

I fully intend to purchase copies of this for our liturgy staff, as some of them are a little stuck in the "everything before Vatican II is outdated, backward and no longer useful to the Church" mindset.

Thank you, Jeffrey!

Thank you for posting this. I only have to question, however, how our normal everyday choirs of untrained voices can truly understand. Recently I had a big argument with a parishioner (who has since left my parish) over the use of the word "sacred". While this information would be wonderful, I don't think he would understand most of it. Most non-musicians have no idea what polyphony is or have any idea of composers such as Palestrina (whom I totally love). My parish only recently (the past 9 months) gone from folksy masses to organ-only and have rebelled against hymnody, let alone Gregorian Chant, saying, "anything that is sung for the glory of the Lord is sacred, no matter what the genre". Is there anything else out there that can ease the transition of mindsets over to the true sacred form of music as outlined?

Adoremus published a thorough series about the Church's teaching on sacred music as it developed over the past 100 years.

Personally, I don't know if I've ever seen a "concert style" Mass, except when it is pre-Vatican II music (e.g., Mozart's Requiem), and even then almost always in the setting of the TLM. Are you talking about parishes that use the modern form of the Mass, but replace things like the responsorial psalm, the Sanctus, or the Agnus Dei with contemporary yet non-participational choral or solo pieces? I've never seen such a thing. At, for example, St. John Cantius here in Chicago they like to pretend that the OF is the EF, and so there is no participational singing (and disapproving glares if you were to try to chant along with Mass VIII or Credo III), but that certainly cannot be attributed to any sort of "post-Vatican" mentality. What are you referring to?

Oh. But all those things are not part of the Mass. As people like our esteemed Jeffrey often remind us, hymns, preludes, meditations, anthems, and the like are not actual parts of the rite. Therefore, the fact that people cannot participate in them (even setting aside the but-listening-is-participation theory) has no bearing on whether they are participating in the Mass as such. To the contrary, what the Council and the subsequent reform had in mind was (1) for people to be able to participate in the parts of the Mass, so that they could join in things like the Gloria and Pater Noster, and (2) for these sung congregational parts to be integral parts of the Mass, rather than a mere para-liturgy sung by the nave-dwellers while the priest in his sanctuary, who has already said the "real" liturgical parts under his breath, moves on to other things and/or sits down to twiddle his thumbs and wait (as he would do during a choral Gloria or Credo in the old form).

At any rate, I'm not sure why a long recessional hymn would be "concert style," not can I tell what any of this has to do with Musicam Sacram -- which does not, if memory serves, object in any way to preludes, postludes, or motets at the appropriate times.

I just want everybody to understand that I am an advocate of Vatican II and feel some of the reforms were major improvements in the faithful's participation in the mass, and, therefore, in their own journeys. However, with anything in life, some people can take it a little too far. While Musicam Sacram called for the more active participation of the faithful in the mass (through mass parts), it also opened the door for too much freedom in how to get the faithful participating. Too many composers went the way of Whoopi Goldberg in "Sister Act" by writing music that would "get butts in the seats". As a result, the music often became showy and full of "bells and whistles". But, again, it's only an opinion.

I have question, and forgive me for my stupidity, but is it permissible to use one section of a a piece with 2 parts for a postlude? (Ex, Prelude, Fugue, Chaconne by Buxtehude- Could I use just the prelude?) Thank you!

I think that's absolutely permissible, and it's done all the time. Just the fugue of a Bach Prelude & Fugue, for instance, or the Prelude before Mass and the Fugue after. I'm sure Buxtehude himself did such things, and so may you! No stupidity involved. :)

Mairi, what you might consider is splitting it up. Play a Prelude before Mass, and the Fugue after Mass. Or, in the case of the Buxtehude, perhaps to the end of the fugue as a prelude, then the manualiter "interlude" and the Chaconne for postlude.

I myself have started doing an entire Prelude and Fugue for either prelude or postlude. I find it much more satisfying, and my congregation really seems to enjoy it.

For Catholics especially, there is NO, and I mean zip/nada/keine, regulation on what can be done outside of "in nomine..." and "Deo gratias". You can play Bach, you can play polka, you can juggle and smoke cigars. The only rules are those which apply during the Mass - though one should certainly be bound by good taste and liturgical principle!!

I'm surprised to read this, that was never my experience at the sung OF Mass at St.JC, (or at the EF for that matter.)
Not that many in the congregation did sing, but I never felt opproprium for singing the parts I knew.

Indeed, once I saw someone who was singing the Credo in a moderate voice literally get tapped on the shoulder and asked to stop. Mostly, though, I just hear whispering and murmuring from the people around -- these are all people who know the Credo, but do not dare to sing it out loud.

I say 'when in Rome, do as the Romans do.' If you're in a church where no one is singing, then don't go and try to prove a point that you have a "right" to sing. But if you're in a church where the custom is to sing, then go ahead!

The Sacred Music FAQ is now on-line.