Here's the criterion for bishops-conference documents:

If it was adopted by a unanimous vote of the whole conference (not just a committee), or
If Rome gave it official approval (recognitio), or
If your bishop specifically ordered that it be binding for your diocese, it's binding.

Otherwise, it's not.

But like Jeffrey said.

The rubrics and instructions in the ritual books are also canonically binding. This is particularly important to note because MS predates the current Missal, and the rubrics and instructions in the Missal - being more recent - trump MS where there is a conflict or question.

There are often liturgical statutes at the diocesan level, promulgated by a bishop in his ordinary authority over liturgical direction where the ritual books or canon law provide or permit. To the extent they are within the authority of the bishop, they have the force of law within his jurisdiction. Unfortunately, I know of no diocese that publishes its statutes online.

Many people are not aware that Music In Catholic Worship, while originally adopted as guidance by the BCL, and later updated by Liturgical Music Today, was adopted as law by the USSCB in the early 80s. (You will not find an online source for this action, because it occurred pre-Internet.) At that time, recognitio was not needed from Rome to do this. While Sing To The Lord does not have the force of law (except to the extent adopted by diocesan statute where possible), its one legal effect was to abrogate MCW/LMT as law. Which is a good thing.

Here is the chart I give to my students.

"Many people are not aware that Music In Catholic Worship, while originally adopted as guidance by the BCL, and later updated by Liturgical Music Today, was adopted as law by the USSCB in the early 80s."

Do you mean to say that this was voted on and approved by the entire conference of bishops? If so, you're right; this the first I've heard of that. Surely, there would be a record of this, when the meeting took place, etc.

While not by any means a music-centric document, believe the GIRM is in a similar category in regard to "binding documents."

Comment above regarding pastor's word being law is interesting - considering occassions where pastors consciously deviate from directives of otherwise binding documents.

How do we fast forward to the dancing part?

Even though I like much of what it says, I don't believe Musicam Sacram is binding. It applies to an earlier missal, and some would say, an earlier rite of mass.

I think a lot of that is anyone's guess. It would be great to get some clarification from someone in authority.

"The pastor's word is law" in that the Pope doesn't sign our paychecks. It's as good as law as far as most musician's are concerned. The question is, when a pastor forces a musician's hand and the action is contrary to church law, who is guilty of the liturgical abuse?

Correct, the bishops' conference approved MCW according to the rules then in effect, long after the committee approved it.
But here's an interesting canonical question. I'm not a canonist so I don't know the answer.
If SttL doesn't have force of law because it wasn't unanimous nor was it recognitio'ed by Rome, does SttL's abrogation of MCW have force of law? I would think not. But it would be odd if MCW were still of higher status legally than SttL, since MCW came in under different rules. Stranger things have happened.
awr

Thanks for looking into that, Prof. Ford. Fr. Ruff's book mentions (p. 389) that MCW was modified slightly in 1983. Is there any indication in your sources that the whole conference approved it at the time?

I'm skeptical about whether the conference's limited legislative authority could have made it binding anyway.

For completeness, we could also mention the 1982 document Liturgical Music Today, offered as a "companion" to MCW.

Add to the problem of "law" the matter of "interpreting" the law...reasonable people can disagree on the technical nuances of all the documents cited above.

Musicam Sacram was intended to guide all Latin Rite parish music from then on, and to guide the use of the newer missal. Saying that "this happened before the new missal, so it doesn't count" is like saying that the US Constitution doesn't bind today's US laws, because the Constitution couldn't possibly envision today's legal conditions. In fact, the US Constitution was designed to bind just such unimagined changes. The future was its whole reason to exist. Same thing with Musicam Sacram.

The whole thrust of the document is to define some norms, and thus show the principles of sacred music are to be applied in practice, as part of liturgical renewal. It is deliberately designed, as far as I can tell, to be applicable under just about any conceivable Latin Rite circumstance; and probably, other Catholic Rites would have no argument with most of the basic principles. (Although they would change some names and tweak it a lot.) This sort of big tent document, with its big generic name, shows that it was designed for the future, no matter what changes took place. (Or what planet or satellite or space station you were singing Mass on.) Principles are, in a way, more binding than explicit regs, because they can continue to apply under totally different conditions.

Musicam Sacram strongly expresses continuity with pre-Vatican II documents, but so do most Vatican II documents. (So do most church documents period, because that's how they show you they're not just pulling this out of their rear ends.) If you are seriously going to claim that Musicam Sacram's not binding because of that continuity, or because it talks about "our own day"*, you're going to have to claim that no Vatican II document is binding on the new missal, because it didn't exist until after the Council stopped meeting. (Which would make it an "unguided missal". I kill me.) This would also mean that no other church document applied to the newer missal, and that all principles and regs of music used with the newer missal would have to be sui generis. As far as I've ever heard, canon law doesn't work that way.

* The interesting thing is that, when people in the Sixties talked about "our day", they pretty much did mean the future. Part of this was the whole summit of history arrogance, but a lot of it was the assumption that all humans were going to get either blown into smithereens or sucked into the Teilhard de Chardin Singularity within the next few years. So "our own day" often meant "until the end of time". Check it out. Read around in different documents from back then, secular and otherwise. It's a pretty funny hidden assumption, but it's definitely there.

Thanks for looking into that, Prof. Ford. Fr. Ruff's book mentions (p. 389) that MCW was modified slightly in 1983. Is there any indication in your sources that the whole conference approved it at the time?

There is no indication.

Thanks Maureen. If a musician try to completely break from the tradition of the Church and start or speak of as a "new rite', he is going against Church's directions and also of the our present Holy Father and all other Popes in the past in the Church. Musicam Sacram is clearly bining to music in N.O in Roman Rite. Novus Ordo is not a new rite, it is a new form in Latin rite, which the Church instroduced "since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin,... (GIRM P.11)

Even GIRM says right in the front, in Preamble "...bear witness to the Church's continuous and unbroken tradition,.. .'

"40 years of misinterpretations by those who propose the hermaneutics of discontinuity could lead us to a split, worries the Holy Father. His papacy has seen the introduction of a new discipline ... to reapply contininuous analysis which is the key for (the Church) to interpret Vatican II documents correctly.

"Always interpret with continuity" is the Holy Father's objective. The Holy Father teaches we cannot interpret the Documents of Vatican II as creating a break with the past." (Fr. Frank Parrinello from Harrisburg )

@miacoyne: well said.

@awrff, I invite you to carefully read:

77. The Entrance and Communion antiphons are found in their proper place in the Roman Missal. Composers seeking to create vernacular translations of the appointed antiphons and psalms may also draw from the Graduale Romanum, either in their entirety or in shortened refrains for the congregation or choir.

footnote 160 says

Antiphons from the Graduale Romanum or Graduale Simplex might be sung in Latin or vernacular.

the problem is, they didn't do their homework. there ain't no such thing. the bishops have never even bothered to approve a translation of the GR.

I wrote to the Secretariat about this, and his answer was that the paragraph read like that in case an approved translation ever appears.

other errors about the nature of the GR:

157. The proper or seasonal Responsorial Psalm from the Lectionary for Mass, with the congregation singing the response, is to be preferred to the gradual from the Graduale Romanum.

(on this, see approved church documents regarding the GR)

158. In addition to the proper or seasonal Psalm in the Lectionary, the Responsorial Psalm may also be taken from the Graduale Romanum

(the GR ain't got no resp. psalms)

i was not surprised when this document was not submitted to rome

incantu, i believe by flowing waters is graduale simplex, not GR

kudos to whoever started this thread. these are all great questions. i think they're worthy of consideration, thought, and examination. one of the 'bomb-shells' my students bring up (usually on a friday afternoon, when i have not kept them busy enough) deals with piux's legislation (which was issued as a juridical code to the entire latin rite, not just recommendations). is it my imagination, or are they extra polite when they ask, so i have no choice but to answer them? any way, it concerns a part of the Pius X motu proprio on sacred music (which I require them all to read). the part they are interested in reads:

14. Finally, only men of known piety and probity of life are to be admitted to form part of the choir of a church.

in particular, they always like to ask whether 'such and such' a person would be allowed to sing at Mass. i am very glad i am not a pastor of a church (and hopefully never become one) because i feel this would be a very difficult decision. how do i stay with the mind and heart of the church on this issue? particularly in light of recent events, what would the decision be? we hear, for instance, of catholics publicly stating such things as 'This makes the Pope’s every word about liturgical renewal, in my mind, rather hollow and hypocritical.' or, just yesterday, a friend of mine e-mailed me a public statement by a priest who said that the day the church approved more accurate liturgical translations is a 'sad day.' put another way, he said that allowing people in the pews to better understand the words at Mass is 'sad.' i doubt pius x had to deal with statements like this in his day.

what is the correct response in cases like these?? my answer over the years has never changed: 'i don't know.'

i don't know the answer. i would be grateful for any thoughts. all i can say is that i'm glad i'm not a pastor. has anyone on this forum ever heard of a pastor having to publicly ask a singer not to sing at Mass because they don't fit the requirements laid down by a Saint-Pope? remember that whenever an issue in canon law is not covered in a more recent document, the principle is to look in the previous document for clarification. does this hold over from canon law? again, i simply don't know. according to pius x, does the pastor have the responsibility to enforce the requirement cited above, or does that responsibility fall to the choir director?

my answer to my students remains the same: 'i don't know, but good question.'

Bachlover, I admire your desire for obedience.
In response to your question about Pope St. Pius X's directive on women in choirs, much had been written on this site.
I have to make lunch for all my children, but let me quickly point you to Pius XII allowing women in choirs in his 1957 document on music. I can't recall the name of it just now... Will post when I have time unless someone beats me to it.
At any rate, Pius XII used his authority to effectively and officially change the rule. So you needn't worry about that one. Many people cling to the 1903 document without realizing that that part of it had been altered by another saintly pope. :)

How the original rule was intended and recieved is an interesting topic, too. But the rule against women in choirs was in fact changed, notably before the Council.

In response to your question about Pope St. Pius X's directive on women in choirs, much had been written on this site.

MA, Singing Mum, I think Bachlover is referring to the "piety and probity" part, not the "men" part.

Having all these documents from different times, often in conflict with each other, is not helpful. Clearly, what is needed are new documents from the top specifying what is to be done musically during mass. None of us will live long enough to see it, I'm afraid.

The appeal to tradition works in the eastern churches, where tradition is viewed as a gift from the Holy Spirit. I was alive during Vatican II and saw its aftermath. Too many in the west gleefully threw out tradition in pursuit of the greener grass they imagined others had to offer. It's difficult to appeal to a tradition most Catholics no longer know.

Fr. Ruff settled the whole matter of women in choirs. It was a dead letter early on. He really proves this, and gives the background on how that rule emerged in the first place. A great treatment in his book.

I'm not suggesting that we ignore the Papal and Conciliar documents. They are a powerful witness to the tradition, and as such can be a useful means of demonstrating it to those whom catechesis and practice have failed, and a salutary reminder to those who think they know better. But the best way we can make that tradition a reality for the many who don't know it, or are estranged from it, is to ensure they encounter it at its prayerful, beautiful best. Without that encounter, authority will simply go in one ear and out the other, with the full encouragement of those with an interest in it doing so. In any given place the effort to rescue and foster the tradition may have small beginnings, and there may be frustrating constraints and setbacks, but it will bear fruit, even if we're not always aware of it (perhaps because we're only planting a seed in somebody's mind). I'm also only too aware that at some places, at some times, the door is closed, but that shouldn't discourage us from keeping a weather eye open for opportunities as they arise.

The alternative - merely to say 'this is law' - is not simply ineffective. It also encourages a quasi-Protestant mindset, in which a thing becomes as it is because a cleric makes it so by fiat, rather than because it is true to the character of our faith and liturgy, and the sacred continuity that underpin them.

Dshadle,

It would certainly be a mistake to expect a consideration of religious tradition to to provide us with a degree of detail comparable to a legal judgement or a musicological dissertation. Not only is that detail not there, but to expect it would be to mistake apples for pears (or expect a papal bull on the breakfast table alongside the Times). It is clear, though, from liturgical books and other sources that chant and the Western Rites are closely related, and have been over the centuries of their development. So, too, the polyphony that had its origins in chant have had a long and close relationship with the liturgy. The relationship has ensured that these forms of music are peculiarly fitted to the Rites and their ethos, and to attempt to divorce them is to diminish the Church's worship.

None of this is to deny that there are gaps in our historical knowledge, particularly in relation to performance practice; but as participants in a living tradition that need not worry us any more than the gaps in our knowledge of the development of the liturgy itself (thought both might fascinate us). Nor is to suggest that other forms of music might not come to have a fruitful role, to the extent that they are sympathetic to it; or, indeed, that the intoduction of the Novus Ordo gives us a number of issues to consider. But it is to assert that chant, and where resources permit, polyphony, should have a 'pride of place' in our worship.

I suspect, dshadle, that you're interpreting 'tradition' as a musicological term, whereas I'm using it in a theological and liturgical sense. Thus, you note the absence of a complete understanding of the history, and therefore rightly hesitate to make make assertions about it; whereas I observe that we sing the liturgy in a tradition that has been passed down to us by the Church along with the Rite with which it developed. As we accept and pray the Rite, so it is reasonable to accept the chant as a support to - and an element of - that prayer, and to suggest that to fail to give it pride of place diminishes the celebration.

That it was or wasn't sung in (North?) Africa would be an archaeological issue, and as such of interest in itself, but not directly relevant to the form in which chant has developed and been transmitted to us in the extant western Rites.

As for polyphony: it undoubtedly had its roots in chant, and the experience of the Church is that, where written with the needs and ethos of the liturgy in mind, it can greatly elevate our sense of worship. The fact that much of the repertoire is lost to us is unfortunate, but does not alter the value of what is left to us, or the Church's estimation of it.

In conclusion, it is not condescending to suggest that we should make this tradition a reality to our neighbours. Rather, it is a passing on of a living element of our particular liturgical tradition. As Church musicians this is our duty and our joy. And if your researches add to our understanding of the tradition, I'll be happy to stand you a pint!