Music in Catholic Worship: officially gone
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    After the question was raised about why the USCCB had Music in Catholic Worship on it site, the document came down!

    It lives on the     Way back machine.
  • Praying The Mass
    Posts: 70
    I have it in MS Word format. The HTML page was corrupted, so I'm missing plenty of footnotes. No big loss in my estimation.
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    Let's see what Klaus Nomi has to say about that:

  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,204
    I just took a little splash through the NPM site, and it's even more interesting to note that both "Music in Catholic Worship" (gone) and "Sing to the Lord" are placed under the heading, Official documents. Official? Really?

    Perhaps this is an old saw, but absent recognitio, aren't these advisory, and not official?

    Also, the link to the "Snowbird Statement" is broken, and they've included a 2007 "Nairobi" statement from the LUTHERAN Church.

    I'm just sayin'.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    They're officially from the USCCB....
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    But, that's about it. I'm sure that NPM is proud to have the documents on its site since the group lobbied heavily to make changes to SttL that pretty much rendered it a paper tiger. Plus, it failed to pass by the required votes that would have sent the document to Rome for the necessary recognitio.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Can anyone inform us on what the term 'recognitio' actually means and how we would be bound to those docs that receive it, and how we would not be bound by those who don't?
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    Recognitio means that it has been recognized and approved by the Vatican. In other words, it makes the document binding.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    and which documents are BINDING in the last 50 years concerning liturigcal norms? Please include all American docs!
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,204
    AND even more interesting, read Redemptionis Sacramentum, which states in pertinent part (and I'm paraphrasing): ANY document written by a body of bishops involving liturgical norms MUST be sent to Rome for recognitio, otherwise it's NOT binding!

    QED, I think.
  • Praying The Mass
    Posts: 70
    For david (et. al.): "All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force. {Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 838 § 3; S. Congregation of Rites, Instruction Inter Oecumenici, 26 September 1964, n. 31: AAS 56 (1964) p. 883; Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, nn. 79-80: AAS 93 (2001) pp. 711-713.}" Redemptionis Sacramentum n. 28
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    For francis: no US bishops-conference documents on music have been submitted for the recognitio. In the field of liturgy, the US "Adaptations" to the GIRM have the recognitio; that document is probably available on the USCCB web site, and will also be included in the printed English edition of the Missal when it appears.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,204
    Chonak,

    Not true. We've been told repeatedly that out of the general assembly meeting of the US bishops in November of 2006, a so-called "Directory of Music in the Liturgy" was submitted to Rome for recognitio.

    It was apparently DOA, as nothing has ever been said about it. Helen Hull Hitchcock reported last November over at Adoremus that the current document, "Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship" is loosely-based on large portions of the '06 "Directory".

    I guess since they couldn't fit it through the front door, they'd cut it into pieces and shove it in through the back.

    (Peter Griffin: "I'm takin' the couch." ~ Family Guy, "Blue Harvest" movie)
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Thank you, colleagues, for this valuable info.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Ah. sorry for the flub, David. So no such documents have received the recognitio? Good.

    Now, if only Rome would start sending bad documents back to Washington with a big thumping rejection.
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    Rome did send back one document, to my knowledge. It was the USCCB revised ritual for ordinations. Now, in my opinion, SttL would probably have met with the same fate because some of it runs contrary to Liturgicam Authenticam and the GIRM. As I read it, SttL encourages adding tropes to the Agnus Dei, including various invocations not found in the Latin text. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, this suggestion would then put SttL at odds with both the GIRM and LA.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    benedictal

    tropes in the Agnus Dei!

    I was going over an AD last night with my choir, and told them tropes were not to be sung, and they all put up a fit... After rehearsal I thought, 'now where did I read about tropes being discontinued?' Does anyone know?!
  • VickiW
    Posts: 36
    There was an article in the Adoremus Bulletin several years ago. I rely on the members of this forum to speak up if there has been any more recent legislation.

    http://www.adoremus.org/1202AgnusDei.html
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Excellent source. Now I am prepared for any questions! Thank you, VickiW
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,204
    I'm bumping this back to the top because the question remains nagging, more so because I'm now gearing up to teach a class on documents governing the music of the liturgy, and also giving a "drive-by" presentation on the meaning of "full, active and conscious participation" to lay folk, focusing on Musicam sacram. No doubt there will be at least one person who asks questions about SttL, or I'll probably have to refer to it at some point.

    In reviewing SttL, I was digging up a few random references and found those nagging little footnotes that reference the 2006 "Directory", which is apparently awaiting some recognition from Rome. Was there ever a formal rejection? What is the status of this document? It seems clear from the language in SttL that the USCCB was counting on making SttL valid through it's references to this document, but alas it never happened.

    Any solid information on this issue is greatly appreciated.
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    The 2006 directory is still sitting at the CDWDS. It reminds me of that old ABC School House Rock jingle, "I'm just a bill and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill." When I went to the Gateway Liturgical Conference back in 2008, I commented to then-Archbishop Malcolm Ranjinth (now Cardinal) who as secretary of the CDWDS at the time, about how a lot of the music used in the United States does not seem to jibe with the ars celebrandi that he spoke about in his address. He told me that the CDWDS was going to issue something soon that would address the issue that I brought up. I am thinking that this could have been the directory; however, given the changes in prefects and secretaries, I don't know if this caused a delay.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Of course "soon" in episcopal speak could mean anything.
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    So true, Doug, so true.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    given the changes in prefects and secretaries

    *cough* Or given the mind of B-16...
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,944
    "Soon" in curial-speak means "whenever we choose to get to it."

    Which means it's not considered terribly urgent. The more urgent you treat it, the less urgent the Curia will treat it.
Add a Comment