What's the word on the street (or on the forum here) about Musicam Sacram?

Specifically, how do you deal with the objection that MS was published before the new Roman Missal (and thus may not apply to post-conciliar liturgy)?

Code of Canon Law:

Can. 20 A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

Can. 21 In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.

On the flipside, how do you account for the provisions of Inter Oecumeni (1964 implementation doc) and MS NOT applying to the Extraordinary Form? For example, IO states that the priest is not to recite any texts sung by the choir (Ordinary or Proper), yet the EF maintains this practice.

Universae ecclesiae:

28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.

I think you just have to look at each case and appliction of the law individually. That's why we liturgists and Church musicians make the same big dollars as those white shoe lawyers.

Well, that brings up the thorny issue of Sing to the Lord, and what its purpose/role is, given that it was never approved by Rome.
Current bishops document not approved by Rome vs. older Vatican directive (Musicam Sacram) that is in tension with the GIRM in places...

Say what you will about weight and authority, the point is the information contained in MS is insightful and commonsense. And, it was written to amplify and set a framework for how the reforms should have been implemented. It really doesn't take rocket science to read MS through the prism of the NO, regardless what some folk who will remain nameless had to say on the issue in Indianapolis in 2007 at a breakout session on the anniversary of MS and on the heels of Summorum pontificum. They know who they are.

SttL has no binding authority. Period. Some of what is presented is good stuff, some of it is just awful rehashing of the progressive nonsense peddled by the now aging hippie crowd via documents like "Music in catholic Worship" (spelled with a lower case "c" on purpose) and "Liturgical Music Today". Believe it or don't, but there are actually people in authority in chancery offices not too far away from where I am right now who publicly insist on quoting from these documents as if they still carry any weight at all. It's pitiful, pathetic and tiring.

Yes, I'm getting really fed up with the way some of these issues are tortured and teased to death here on this forum and elsewhere. If we don't start taking this stuff seriously (I mean seriously, not some of the quasi-intellectual banter that passes for high-toned discussion), we'll lose what little ground we've gained in reclaiming our unique Catholic identity.

Actually, kirchenmusic, someone on the Praytell Blog posted that the Holy See struck down the part of SttL that deals with tropes and the Agnus Dei. Whereas SttL stated that these could be added, the Holy See ruled that they could not.

I received a lot of flak on another forum when I stuck to my guns and noted that my "Gibbs gut" told me that these additional tropes were wrong. It is a wonderful feeling to be validated by the Holy See.

For starters, you can check out Redemptionis Sacramentum's section on the matter, particularly no. 27 (see the bolded part).

2. The Conference of Bishops

26. The same holds for those commissions of this kind which have been established by the Conference of Bishops in accordance with the will of the Council, commissions whose members consist of Bishops who are clearly distinguished from their expert helpers. Where the number of members of a Conference of Bishops is not sufficient for the effective establishment of a liturgical commission from among their own number, then a council or group of experts should be named, always under the presidency of a Bishop, which is to fulfill the same role insofar as possible, albeit without the name of “liturgical commission”.

27. As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass and reiterated the same in 1988. Accordingly, individual Bishops and their Conferences do not have the faculty to permit experimentation with liturgical texts or the other matters that are prescribed in the liturgical books. In order to carry out experimentation of this kind in the future, the permission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is required. It must be in writing, and it is to be requested by the Conference of Bishops. In fact, it will not be granted without serious reason. As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed.

28. 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.

Super!

If asking nicely gets the NeoCat approved, how about the formation of a new confraternity by parishes with priests who would want to bring the NO more in conformity with, say, the English translation of the EF in the 1962 Missal? Any takers?

Ohhh... I would love that, Patricia. I wish it would happen.

"Breed like tribbles"?

MS is the last document from the Holy See on sacred music, and it's from 1967. RS is from 2004.

I wouldn't call that rapid and plentiful breeding. On the contrary, ISTM that it's certain quarters of the USCCB and not the Vatican that like to flood the field with as many documents as possible, and as they all lack recognitio (by design or otherwise), one wonders why they do it and in whose best interest they do it. It certainly isn't for the folk who simply seek to do what the Church asks, in the way the Church asks.

Much of the controversy over issues in sacred music seem to be generated by the progressives and liberals who rely on as many documents as they can when these documents can be teased and twisted to support their position, but then turn around and dismiss documents when they don't.

I don't consider what I do "sticking to ideologies". I consider it fidelity to the Holy See and the "Mind of the Church" when it's plainly and consistently stated. Again, it's only the progressives who seem to enjoy generating a false murkiness around these issues by making it seem as though these issues aren't plain or consistent. Of course, in order to arrive at such a conclusion, they have to selectively read or completely ignore the very documents that contain the force of particular law while giving full credence to those that do not.

Agreed on the breeding of confusion - one wonders who the proliferating documents are supposed to benefit.

Let me include a more specific question, though, between two official documents: MS and the GIRM.

MS explicitly includes permission for the performance of complete Mass Ordinary settings by the choir. The GIRM treats each movement differently - the Gloria may be sung by the choir alone (explicitly stated); the Agnus and Kyrie are 'normally' sung by all (implying the choir may sing them); the Sanctus and Credo are simply sung or said by all. The Sanctus and Credo seem especially difficult to harmonize with MS - why use the language "normally sung by all" for the Agnus and Kyrie, but not for the Sanctus and Credo? This is more telling, given the explicit language for the processional propers, which may each be sung by the choir alone. I've heard it argued that ALL provisions in the GIRM are norms, and do not cover every possibility, but of course we don't like that when it's an excuse for 'innovations.'

In re-reading Msgr. Richard Schuler's "Chronicle of the Reform" article, I found no mention of the language of the GIRM. There was, however, a lot of pointing to MS's explicit permission for the choral Ordinary. He was arguably America's leading advocate for the choral Ordinary - but no mention of the GIRM in relation to this practice.

So, leaving things like STTL out of it, does the GIRM abrogate anything in MS by the language about the Ordinary? (BTW, of course I have also read Ratzinger's comments about the choral Sanctus. But he makes a theological approach to the issue, rather than working through documents).