I would also pair these documents with the three books on liturgy that Pope Benedict has written: Feast of Faith, A New Song for the Lord (which heavily mentions sacred music) and the Spirit of the Liturgy (where he devotes significant texts on music). Reading these three books will give you a blueprint for the Benedictine reforms that are unfolding before our eyes.

You will find an excerpt from A New Song in the sacred music section of the Adoremus website. It is a good read. Spirit of the Liturgy has some very good points about music, especially where it concerns rock music. Pope Benedict is very clear about where he stands on music. I just felt so bad that he had to endure the kind of music we have to put up with week after week in many of our parishes when he came to visit the U.S. I was particulary embarassed with the DC Mass. It's as though the organizers didn't read any of his works.

Hi, David Andrew. Please post the list of the documents you will propose for the study. I'd like to suggest them to our parish priest who is very open to this kind of study and discussion. We just had a discussion session on 'The Spirit of the Liturgy.' We didn't really talk about music much, but we discussed on 'Church being not a place of social cohesion but a cultic space rererved forGod,' (Chapter 2) 'Problems with priest facing the people during Mass,' 'Eucharist is the presence of a person not a gift,' and misunderstanding of "active participation." It was a good start for people to think about the Liturgy.
I would not want to include "Progressive side' documents, if they are more progressive than Our Church is. To me, being Catholic means doing 'what you supposed to do' , 'not what you like to do.'
I deepened my faith through the Church's teaching, not by 'Progressive Doc.' I don't know many saints who became saints by those documents either. Our intellectual minds cannot be compared to God's knowledge.

Oh yes, what happens when they get there?

Humans are made to be holy as God made them in His image. God gave us gifts that we can use for our holiness. Music is one of them. We can have profane music and sacred music. The litury is God's. He is in action. We don't make Litrugy, we can only participate with humility. Jesus showed us that profane things don't belong to His holy Temple. The Liturgy is a rite where God comes to us through Jesus in his Holy sacrifice.
Todd, have you read the book by Our Pope Benedict, who had a major part in the commttee for Second Vatican coucil II, 'Sing a New Song for the Lord?" He talks about Heavenly Liturgy, in which Jesus came down to open the door for Heaven. I go to Mass to meet Jesus and reminded of Heaven. If I just remided of Earthly things, through prohfane things, I don't need to go to Mass. Instead, I'll just stay home and pray. Also in the book, the Pope defines the misconception of 'community,' and 'active participation.' Maybe we should define the words in the documents before we even talk about the Second Vatican II. Maybe the holy fathers didn't use the term in the same way most people interperet.( also translation problems complicate the issue even more). Before I read 'Progressive theology 'of some individuals, I have to read the documents of Holy Fathers and understand the teachings of Our Holy Church. I'm sure those theologians are much smarter and intellectual than me, but so was Martin Luther.

Unfortunately, that is the kind of stuff that I heard in 2003 during the FDLC conference in San Antonio. I found this opinion rather disheartening. Theology and liturgy go hand in hand. The fact that the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wasn't a "liturgist" in their estimation doesn't change the fact that he has a depth of knowledge and a keen insight as to what happened during and after the Council and how we got into this mess. Now that he is Pope Benedict, what he wrote in his books is coming to pass.

Trying Trying to be holy is a challenge in today's society, especially in the Western culture where the materialism is so ingrained in every aspect of our life. People also do not want to seperate what's sacred and profane any more. But the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is still not a casucasual event. It's different from going to a grocery (which is necessary for me to live). I do not expect to hear chant at a grocery store, and I do not expect to hear 'grocery music' at the Mass. If the Holy Mass is not holy, where do I get holiness to live the rest of the day hoday holy? The popular conecept of relativism tries to make everything look gray. Everything is just about the same; no difference between profane and sacred, not much difference between priest and people in Mass, no more difference between men and women, maybe nothing even bad and good, everything is Ok., maybe there's no more hell and Heaven either. I don't think that's what Jesus told us, and taught us. We need to strive to be holy, lowerinlowering the standard of holiness is a mockery to God. We keep doing what we are supposed to do, and trust God and our Holy Mother Church that He will show us the light through our Church. We cannot cannot solve the problem of the whole world. That's not what God asks us to do. Mother Teresa started her work to save one soul. We, as a church musician, can do so much in our own small parish. I teach teach my children Baltimore Cathechism, instead of sending them to CCD class. It would have been much easier for me to choose CCD clclass. And I don't think they teach anything really bad (morally). But I cannot lower my standard. If people want to have just eaeasy way out, I'm sure there are many ways you can do that. It goes with music ministry too. It might be easier to just sing whatever they want to sing, and they will sing. But we have to ask ourselves 'are we really helping them to be holy as God wants us to be holy? Sometimes the more you know, the more you suffer. But that's our cross.
I startedI started a small schola in our parish and started to sing some simple chants. People don't feel alieanated, they started to see what is truly spiritual and holy through sacred music. Since our schola started, I also noticed that youth director started to teach the youth group some hymns in Latin, and the regular choir also trying Latin poplyphony, and the choir members are very excited about that. (They never sang them before) I don't know much about many things and not so smart, but I learned that one can do a lot, because it's not me who is doing it. I'm just a small instrument in MasterMaster's hand.

While I disagree with Todd's assessment of Ratzinger's liturgical scholarship, I think it's important to remember that the book was written by a cardinal, NOT a pope. The writings within are binding on us only so far as they are in agreement with authoritative church documents. No one need subscribe to Ratzinger's theories of hermeneutic of this or that to do music in the Roman Rite. Even his writings now that he is Pope are non-binding; you only need believe those things in Jesus of Nazareth that are in agreement with Church teaching. However, when he speaks as Successor to Peter, pay attention - such as in Summorum Pontificum and Sarcamentum Caritatis. Let's not canonize his earlier writings into something that must be believed under pain of heresy. His liturgical writings are invaluable; study them at a book club. But their influence on our liturgical work is only a personal thing, not principles we MUST adhere to in our work.

Gavin, the problem is that, for most people out there, they haven't read Summorum Pontificum and Sacramentum Caritatis, or if they have, they just shrug their shoulders and say, "eh.. it's from Rome, who cares?" Most of us here don't have the time, energy, or resources to discover for ourselves what should be done; we just want someone to point us in the right direction. That's why we love the CMAA and Benedict - we don't want to learn new and creative ways to do something other than what we're asked to do - there are many other blogs for that.

Anyone else bored with having our discussions run down rabbit holes?

"The writings within are binding on us only so far as..." they are the thinking, the beliefs, the core that brought the Holy Spirit to make him Pope....

The Holy Spirit was likely less impressed by the writings of Ratzinger than we might be impressed by an ant farm. Nothing the brightest human can say will sound like anything but baby talk to God.

Let's talk politics indeed. Sen. Obama once did cocaine. Gov. Palin did pot and was possibly a member of a separatist group. Does that mean that when Sen. Obama becomes president that there's going to be a lot of dollar bills, razors, and mirrors at the White House, or would a vice president Palin still support making Alaska its own country? No, people move on from old positions. I can dig up writings in a minute from myself which are MORE recent than Ratzinger's books. In these writings, I establish that the right thing to do at Mass is to dump Haugen and Haas and only do good Protestant hymnody. Following your logic, if one wants to know my views on music for the Mass, they need only read my writings where I advocate this. However, that would be a mistake, as my views have matured as of late.

Additionally, before I got my last job I was under the impression that it's ideal to have different genres of music available at different services to satisfy people. Yet that wasn't how I ran my music program, because I saw what the Church had to say. As a matter of fact, I still feel the same way, and I did throughout my time there. The difference was that I knew my own opinions had to take back seat to what the Church wanted and what was good for the parish.

Let's say, as a hypothetical, that Ratzinger wanted to abolish the 1970 Mass. Then he becomes Pope. Does he do it? Perhaps he had a change of heart sometime before that and decided that all was needed was a growth of quality celebration. Maybe he still would want to abolish it but won't out of pastoral consideration to the scandal it would cause. Maybe he favors the older form but wants to promote it positively. Only if he comes out and actually does away with the OF can one point to his books with any hope to "show what the pope wants" though. The same goes with hermeneutical theories and opinions about postures and such. Don't get me wrong: the books are GREAT food for thought and important to read. I haven't read any of them, but I suspect I'd find nothing to disagree with. However, they still aren't the voice of the Church and we should be careful to distinguish between personal writings and authoritative DOCUMENTS.

Hence my advice to David: have a book study on Spirit of the Liturgy. Bring up some of the arguments and topics in your document study. But don't treat them as something they're not, authoritative legislation.

Oh yes, and I believe Geri mentioned that Ratzinger was possibly once opposed to Marian devotion. So if you want to follow the Holy Father, better drop your rosary in the trash. Schismatic.

I do not believe that the Holy Father ever had an aversion to Marian devotion. In fact, he's written two books on the subject (one co-written with Fr. Hans Urs Von Balthasaar) and he also wrote a commentary on one of Pope John Paul's encyclicals on Mary. Methinks that the whole brouhaha centered around the issue of the Third Secret of Fatima.

As far as his liturgical acumen is concerned, Benedict is perhaps one of the finest theological minds to ever occupy the Chair of St. Peter. Furthermore, he never said he was in favor of abolishing the Pauline Mass, far from it. What he was (and is against) is the fact that innovations, banality and creativity were shoved into the Pauline Mass and reverence, beauty, solemnity and the sacred were forced out. He saw this as early as the 1970s when the Pauline Mass was still in its infancy. What he was also railing against was the swift replacement of the TLM with the Pauline Mass and the mistaken notion that the TLM was banned. He said so much in his book, "MIlestones." Incidentally, in a few other books, the Holy Father mentions the liturgy several times.

I'm sorry, Charles, you've lost me. I'm not sure where I went "ad hominem", by insinuation or otherwise. I'm more than happy to take correction.

There's only one post from you in this thread, and I agree whole-heartedly with what you say. Have I missed something?

The Holy Spirit was likely less impressed by the writings of Ratzinger than we might be impressed by an ant farm. Nothing the brightest human can say will sound like anything but baby talk to God.

Well, I'm not so sure. I believe Christ himself told Peter that whatever he loosed on earth shall also be loosed in heaven. If we believe that Benedict XVI is the successor to Peter, then his statements certainly resound a bit more in heaven than our perceptions of ants wondering why everyone is looking at them.

Michael and Gavin -

The Holy Spirit was likely less impressed by the writings of Ratzinger than we might be impressed by an ant farm. Nothing the brightest human can say will sound like anything but baby talk to God.

I don't think I'd be willing to ask my son to sacrifice himself for an ant farm, but neither am I God.

As I'm the one who started it, I can certainly sink it, but I'm not going to. I'd rather let the folks that have intelligent and civil comments be given the opportunity to continue contributing, rather than sink it simply because there are those who wish to cloud the discussion with comments clearly intended to bait other participants.

If one of the moderators decides to close and sink this discussion, I certainly will respect that. If that does happen, however, I can only say that those who have engaged in rhetoric rather than discourse on this thread will probably continue to derail every beneficial discussion on the board.

A pity, really.

Thank you for keeping it, DA - I think it's a worthy topic. My initial concern was that your choice of documents seems to focus rather exclusively on the music aspect. Obviously, it's your "comfort zone" so is not a bad thing in itself.

But it might be a good idea to open with an introduction to the types of documents published by the Church. The GIRM is a good place to start as it is pretty specific and familiar. How does it relate to the Sacramentary? And folks may want to know what is a "bull" or "moto proprio" or "encyclical", etc.

You open a huge can of worms that might someday be worthy of being called graduate school studies!

Perhaps I shouldn't have said I wanted to do a "document" study. Here's what I want to do . . .

What I want to do is present people with the same materials I've read, both documents and other writings, that have been responsible for the formation of my understanding of sacred music and how it relates (or better, how it is inseparable from) the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I completely understand that there are "classes" of documents and writings, but let's face facts, the average PIP has never been told what those classes are. Rather, the USCCB (and their lay ministry allies in the FDLC, along with folks involved in catechetical programs) has for the last 30 or so years been flogging their advisory documents and guidelines as if they carry the full force and effect of those issued by the Holy See. I think it's high time that people be disabused of this notion that if the American Bishops say it, it must carry the same weight, when in fact it doesn't. They need to be instructed in the concept of recognitio. Propaganda machines (yes, I said it) like NPM and the big publishing houses (both for music and general catechetical materials) have effectively controlled the flow of information and materials that have directly impacted how we worship and even why we worship, the very foundation of our Faith . . . its "source and summit".

People need, and indeed have a right to be exposed in a systematic way to the received teachings and traditions of the Church, and so why not include both binding, legislative docs from the Holy See as well as the various non-binding types of writings from the popes? Isn't that what is meant by "the mind of the Church"? I sat with a group of folks (active musicians in the Church for many many years, as well as priests) this last summer who talked about SttL as if it carried legislative weight. When I mentioned Musicam Sacram, held up a copy of the Gregorian Missal and talked about the various writings of Benedict XVI as well as lay scholars, they looked at me as if I had a second head. We're talking about people some of whom have been singing this music and leading it at worship since before the Second Vatican Council and they can't speak intelligently about the very activity they engage in. Yet their "opinions" are being considered when it comes to the direction the parish I currently work for will take with respect to music and the liturgy.

I also want people to be exposed to an unvarnished explanation of the history of where we came from and how we got here. Msgr. Schuler's "Chronicle of the Reform" is one such explanation. I know of other writings, such as those of Michael Davies, but I want to be careful. While I understand what he says, some of his stuff comes off as "screechy," and what I'm looking to build is credibility and a well-rounded knowledge base for these folks.

I would caution against pitting the USCCB against Rome. Between anyone here and myself, I will confide that I don't see any connection between the USCCB and Rome. BUT, when I'm acting in a position of leadership, it's not my job to tell people that our bishops don't give a good gosh darn what the Pope says, nor that the creation of Bishop's Conferences was a mistake. That has only the power to create scandal. People have lost their faith because of the idiocy of the bishops, and I include myself in that. You have to have a LOT more faith than I do that the USCCB has anything to do with the Apostles, but it's not my job to bust up anyone's faith. I'm reminded of Noah's sons reveling in his nudity. It is very unfortunate that, on nearly every matter, our bishops have rejected the voice of Rome, but it's a great disservice to those we serve to bring attention to it. Teach fidelity to Rome, and teach fidelity to the bishops, and pretend that isn't contradictory.

Take our bishops - please. With apologies to Henny Youngman. Although to give them their due, I think the bishops have improved a bit as the "crazies" from the 60s and 70s have been forced into retirement.

Another way to look at SttL is that after thinking and praying about the issue more deeply, they decided that creating an advisory document was actually a better thing to do, more useful to their flock. Perhaps "circumventing the approval process" was not the desired result, but just a side-effect of the way the process works.

I don't know one way or the other myself, and perhaps none of us really know. Perhaps the different bishops had different points of view which led to that result. But let's admit that "circumventing the approval process" is our interpretation of the events, not necessarily the only interpretation.

I'm big on giving people the benefit of the doubt, if you hadn't noticed. It's a weakness sometimes, but nonetheless I've decided it's better to do that than take a more confrontational approach. YMMV. :-)