For the OF, I assume you're talking about?

I haven't seen the chart, but I suspect I know the content.

De Musica Sacra #31 outlines the four degrees which ought to be followed. You should only sing B if you have already sung A, only C if already singing A and B, etc...

a) First, the congregation may make the easier liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest: Amen; Et cum spiritu tuo; Deo gratias; Gloria tibi Domine; Laus tibi, Christe; Habemus ad Dominum; Dignum et justum est; Sed libera nos a malo;

b) Secondly, the congregation may also say prayers, which, according to the rubrics, are said by the server, including the Confiteor, and the triple Domine non sum dignus before the faithful receive Holy Communion;

c) Thirdly, the congregation may say aloud with the celebrant parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Gloria in excelsis Deo; Credo; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei;

d) Fourthly, the congregation may also recite with the priest parts of the Proper of the Mass: Introit, Gradual, Offertory, Communion. Only more advanced groups who have been well trained will be able to participate with becoming dignity in this manner.

I have never met a priest celebrant, no matter what his views on liturgy or tradition, who knows those 29-31 and takes them seriously. It's not surprising. They greatly constrain the rubrics and the GIRM, or they out and out contradict each other.

By these rules, even taking para. 8 into account, the prayers of the faithful have to be sung if there is to be an entrance hymn. If the priest can sing, then the entrance rites have to be sung if the Gloria is sung. And note that 31b refers to the responsorial psalm which by this must be recited unless the Creed is sung.

(It's true that Musicam Sacram doesn’t actually insist that all of the second degree must be sung before any of the third; but why otherwise divide them into three (rather than two) degrees?)

LOL.

Of course, MatthewJ, I am writing from Ontario, as (and which) you know. (Although I'm reporting experience at Mass in half a dozen countries.) I think visiting Phoenix would be a pleasant shock indeed.

In my area, there are three parishes. Here's what you'll find:

Of no. 29, only the Pater Noster (in vernacular of course) is sung at one parish, and the other two in the city don't sing any of no. 29 at all.

Of no. 30, only the Gloria and Agnus Dei (in vernacular of course). At one parish, they don't sing the Gloria, they recite it.

Of no. 31, everything except letter (e) (in vernacular of course).

We probably have to rely on our Bishops' Conferences for more recent advice, for example Sing to the Lord contains a comparable, but less prescriptive, list at #115 and #116.

At least in this country (USA), the advice of the USCCB is largely ignored in most parishes, especially as regards music. At least it is where I am.

Even if Musicam Sacram were in force, why would anybody think it was a good idea to apply it blindly to the modern form of the Mass? As I remarked elsewhere about this subject:

"Musicam Sacram is a dead letter, juridically speaking. It was issued when the Mass in use worldwide was still the TLM, and represented an effort to loosen up some of the tight restrictions on the use of music -- under the old Mass, many people were doomed to perpetual silent low Masses (perhaps with some hymns) because they had priests who didn't like to sing, or at least who didn't have the resources to put on the full splendor of a Missa Cantata from end to end.

"As it happened, though, three short years later the new Mass was issued. The legalistic framework of Musicam Sacram ('You can't sing this, unless you also sing that') was not adopted, and it therefore ceased to have juridical force. However, we can and should look to MS for enlightenment of certain principles relating to music in the liturgy -- it is, after all, a product of the same Consilium that would go on to develop the Missal of Paul VI. But it would probably be perverse to try to interpret a document, intended in its day to increase freedom, in such a way as to limit freedom today.

"Personally, I think MS's famous three-part framework is of only limited value, since the Mass it was talking about was very different from what we have today. 'The Alleluia before the Gospel' is relegated to the third degree, among the least important (or, rather, least singable) items, but that is because, at the time, it was a full Gregorian Alleluia, out of the reach of many smaller choirs and with no opportunity for the congregation to participate. The Alleluia of the modern Mass, musically speaking, is a different animal altogether, and it would be bizarre to suggest today that a straightforward congregational Alleluia could or should not be sung unless, for instance, you were also singing the prayer of the faithful (2nd degree).

"I should point out that we need to read the document correctly. When it refers, for instance, to 'the songs at the Entrance and Communion processions' (3rd degree), it means the Introit and Communio propers, not Gather Us In or Gift of Finest Wheat. The modern Responsorial Psalm, likewise, is not what is embraced by 'the songs after the Lesson or Epistle' (also 3rd degree), but rather the Gradual or Tract.

"Overall, it looks to me like the three-part structure prioritizes singing things that are short, easy, involve the congregation, and/or are repeated from week to week. This means unchanging dialogue and the Pater Noster in the first degree; in the next, the Ordinary. At the very end come the things that are long, complicated, changeable, and non-participational: the Gregorian Propers and the singing of the readings. The three-part framework can thus be seen to fail as a guideline for the music of the modern Mass. In a day when the Alleluia is short, simple, unchanging, and participational, it makes no sense -- nor, just as importantly, was it ever the intention of the Consilium or Paul VI -- to rank it in the last degree."

TL;DR: Musicam Sacram was about the Mass parts in the TLM, which had very different characteristics and levels of singability.

This error gets repeated over and over again.

There is no 3-fold list in Musicam Sacram that prioritizes what should be sung.

It clearly states in no. 28: ... for the sung Mass (Missa cantata), different degrees of participation are put forward .... ... the faithful will be continually led towards an ever greater participation in the singing.

They are degrees of participation.

In other words, given a sung Mass, ie. given a Mass where everything is sung, here are your priorities for involving the people.

That is why, for example, the Gloria is in the second category: not because it is less of a priority to sing the Gloria than the Lord's prayer, but because it is less of a priority for the people to participate in singing the Gloria at a Missa cantata.

Re-read the 3-fold list using the above (i.e., what it actually says, that these are degrees of participation), and it will begin to make sense.

While one might extrapolate from this list a hierarchy of what should be sung vs. said, it should not be asserted that this is what Musicam Sacram is actually saying in nn 29-31. MS does not give a 3-fold list of priorities of what should be sung. A description of priorities is given in MS 7 and 16, and has been brought forward into GIRM 40. But there is no detailed, 3-fold list for choosing which parts are said vs. sung.

Is there any way the brakes could be applied to this all-too-frequent mistaken reading of MS?

.

It clearly states in no. 28: ... for the sung Mass (Missa cantata), different degrees of participation are put forward .... ... the faithful will be continually led towards an ever greater participation in the singing.

Thanks for reminding about this. However, it appears then that n. 31 (e) does not makes sense, since lessons by definition are not meant to be sung by the whole congregation, no matter in which form of the Roman rite.

It's also more expensive - this new idea that there is not difference between High and Low. Now all the candles get lit all the time, for greater "solemnity" even if nothing is sung! Those poor, hard-working bees!

I find charts very helpful in thinking through things, so I hope someone is able to post Fr. Pasley's chart. I wanted to offer a couple charts that I put together that include color-coded reference to the three degrees of sung participation (Order, Ordinary, Proper).

Sacrifice of the Mass
Liturgy of the Hours

The two charts try to show the musical shape and active participation at the different moments of the Mass and Liturgy of the Hours, following Dr. Mahrt's work Musical Shape of the Liturgy. This is my own synopsis of his work and other Church resources, so I know it is not perfect. I put these together for part of a series on Sacred Music described here. Fr. Vogel

To clarify on "participation": based on the nuances of MS and the inclusion of the scripture readings in the 3-part hiearchy, I would propose that MS is outlining a plan for INVOLVING the congregation in the sung, or ideal form, of the Mass - NOT merely listing which things the congregation should sing first. In other words, this IS a list of which parts of the sung Mass to sing first, and does not necessarily assume that all parts are sung already by the choir/priest. When all three parts of the ranking are sung by someone, the congregation participates (both internally and externally, as appropriate) in the full sung Mass - without having to physically sing everything. More critically, one can take steps toward the sung Mass (maybe singing all of 1, or all of 1 and 2) without having everything sung. That is the key, and unprecedented, contribution of this hierarchy. Who (priest/choir/congregation/all) sings which of the parts of the hierarchy is still open for discussion.

Musicam Sacram remains liturgical law insofar as it applies to the ordinary form. The chapters under consideration (29-35) pertain to the distinction between high and low Mass, which is to be retained. The authorization for the degrees of participation are for the gradual achievement of the high Mass. They do not pertain only to the participation of the congregation since they prescribe that the priest sing the collect, etc. Neither are they so hard and fast that there cannot be exceptions, such as that mentioned in chapter 36: "There is no reason why some of the Proper or Ordinary should not be sung in said Masses."

Because there is doubt about how it applies to the ordinary form, since the legislation governing the ordinary form postdates it and therefore normally would take precedence, I would strongly caution about characterizing failure to follow as "directly disobeying" given the ample loophole given to doubt in the application of gravity to following legislation.

Depends what you mean by law, my emphasis.

Musicam Sacram is an instruction promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. As such it falls into a particular category of Roman documents. R. Kevin Seasoltz defines an instruction as “a doctrinal explanation or a set of directives, recommendations, or admonitions issued by the Roman curia. It usually elaborates on prescriptions already set out in another document so that they may be more effectively implemented. Strictly speaking, an instruction does not have the force of universal law or definition.”

From p.18 of this (Musicam Sacram Revisited: Essays in Honor of Robert W. Hovda)
Musicam Sacram is one of the finest documents Bugnini and his collaborators gave us. Fr Ruff on Pray Tell Oct 30

@ClergetKubisz I agree, alas. We should be directed and admonished by MS, but by applying the meaning of it to the reshaped liturgy we now have, as the essays I cite above seek to do.