Music At Mass

[Papist]

[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"]Gregorian Chant![/size][/font][/color]
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"] [/font][/color][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"]And I would love to take singing lessons to be able to chant that wouldn't hurt people's ears.[/size][/font][/color]

Edited June 23, 2011 by Papist

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308830172' post='2257667']
The first two sentences of your post are simply your own view and have no relevance on the Church at large.
[/quote]

We always seem to forget that persons can still have legitimate views.

[quote]
I am glad you love a good chant, but I disagree...we chant all the time, even in the most liberal churches, but they don't call it chant, because the liberals have this need to be avant garde...

The Church NEVER envisioned there to be variants and varieties of worship. NEVER. Her understanding of proper liturigical worhsip is that her liturgy follow the Roman MIssal, for the Roman Rite. This can be done either in the OF or the EF. That is the most variation we are allowed. Any movement away from the rubrics and the approved Church forms of music is an abuse, no matter how widespread or how isolated.
[/quote]

I disagree here, because as my Open Mic topic (Different Spiritualities) shows that as there are different varieties of spirituality, there are different varieties of worship. I won't debate upon the proper liturgical worship, since as you've stated there can be variation within that which I agree with. The point is that wavering even slightly from the line does not make it 'abuse' 'heretical' or whatever else you want to imply there.

[quote]
Show me where the Church says that praise and worship music is to be the accepted form of musical worship? I can show you countless places, documents, statements and papal opinion, where chant is to be the norm. The fact that we don't have it is as the norm everywhere is an abuse. We can even take this a step further and parrot something I've said on the other thread...show me where traditional Catholic hymnody is to be the normative musical expression of the Church? If you're going to hold that those forms of music are appropirate and that the "other stuffy makes you sad," what is your basis for this...
[/quote]

I never said that P & W had to be the norm. Nor did I claim that chant made me sad or whatever if that's what you are implying. I was simply stating that the fact we have different forms should be appreciated not condemned.

[quote]
The hermeneutic of rupture needs to be mended and addressing proper worship is #1 on the list. People might not like it, but then again people need to be educated, for as Bishop Sample said to the entire body of the USCCB that he was from a generation which received no real catechesis and we've passed that along to the next generation. So, when authentic catechesis comes out, resistance is expected...but hardness of heart is not. We need to be open to looking at what the Church actually wants and not just at what we want, even if it is "stuffy stuff that makes us sad."
[/quote]

Agreed, yet the thing is that Tradition unfolds as does the Church organically grow over time as we have seen. Clutching on past movements and the like is not exactly Orthodox, in fact I find that destructive. I am not saying this on the grounds that anything goes, but on the grounds that recognizing that we can appreicate the new developments and growth in the Church without acting superstitious or afraid, when we honestly don't understand them. (not implying you don't Cam)

Otherwise, I have found this whole 'educating and etc' a gross form of exaggeration of "faith and reason", of which I am finding a whole a lot of reason, but not enough Faith. (again this is not against you Cam I mean it in general).

[Cam42]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1308841475' post='2257692']
We always seem to forget that persons can still have legitimate views.



I disagree here, because as my Open Mic topic (Different Spiritualities) shows that as there are different varieties of spirituality, there are different varieties of worship. I won't debate upon the proper liturgical worship, since as you've stated there can be variation within that which I agree with. The point is that wavering even slightly from the line does not make it 'abuse' 'heretical' or whatever else you want to imply there.



I never said that P & W had to be the norm. Nor did I claim that chant made me sad or whatever if that's what you are implying. I was simply stating that the fact we have different forms should be appreciated not condemned.



Agreed, yet the thing is that Tradition unfolds as does the Church organically grow over time as we have seen. Clutching on past movements and the like is not exactly Orthodox, in fact I find that destructive. I am not saying this on the grounds that anything goes, but on the grounds that recognizing that we can appreicate the new developments and growth in the Church without acting superstitious or afraid, when we honestly don't understand them. (not implying you don't Cam)

Otherwise, I have found this whole 'educating and etc' a gross form of exaggeration of "faith and reason", of which I am finding a whole a lot of reason, but not enough Faith. (again this is not against you Cam I mean it in general).
[/quote]

Yes, persons can have legitimate views, as long as they are supported by the Church. I've asked for support from you on that position...can you provide any?

I don't disagree that there can be different forms of spirituality, but there are only two forms of worship in the Roman Rite. They are very regulated and very regimented. There is only one way to do each, without being abusive. Anything else is abusive, no matter how slight the variation. The point is that wavering is abusive. Heresy doesn't really apply in this case, unless the preaching at Holy Mass is heretical, then it most certainly does.

You claimed that praise and worship was appropriate. I said that chant is to be the norm. And then I supported it. I also bemoaned the fact that in so many places the norm is ignored. I also said that Catholic hymnody has no place in Holy Mass, because it is not proper to authentic worship as defined by the Church for a sung Mass. It is tolerated a low Mass, but since we don't really distinguish between the two any longer, it is hard to argue that point...and even then, the hymn should be sung in Latin first, then in the vernacular.

You said:
[quote]As far as the other stuffy goes, hymns make me cry half the time (in a bad way) because they are just done so poorly.[/quote]

I think that my statement is pretty accurate when I asked:
[quote]If you're going to hold that those forms of music are appropirate and that the "other stuffy makes you sad," what is your basis for this...
[/quote]

I still would like to know....I can only assume the "stuffy" is what you consider to be stuffy music, ie. traditional forms of music in the Mass.

Yes, the Church does grow organically, but that organic growth can only occur when it is authentic. It is clear that praise and worship music in the Mass is not authentic, neither is hymnody, btw. To chant the ordinaries and propers, with either organ or approved musical accompaniment the only acceptable way to musically worship at Mass. All other forms to a greater or lesser degree is not what the Church teaches, not what the Council Fathers ratified and supported, and therefore an abuse. You might not like it, but you do have to accept it. We assent our wills first to the mind of the Church and we learn.

[CatherineM]

I've had over a dozen years of professional vocal instruction. I've chanted the litany at ordinations. I've sung lots of things I didn't like, doesn't mean that I can't. I don't sing at church right now. We had a new parishioner come in who was a music teacher, and he and his wife took over the music ministry. They literally ran off people who had been running the program for years without help or a break. Big surprise, after they did that, they left the church too. Now our music is being done by someone who plays an electric clarinet. I couldn't make that up if I tried, I'd never seen one before.

We all have our ideal way the liturgy should be done, and the music, but most of us live in the real world where parishes struggle to fill the seats, pay the electric bills, and keep a priest on hand to do the sacraments. We are grateful to have a mass, even if it isn't perfect.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1308845022' post='2257700']
I've had over a dozen years of professional vocal instruction. I've chanted the litany at ordinations. I've sung lots of things I didn't like, doesn't mean that I can't. I don't sing at church right now. We had a new parishioner come in who was a music teacher, and he and his wife took over the music ministry. They literally ran off people who had been running the program for years without help or a break. [/quote]
How weird; that is literally the same thing that's happened in my home parish. This guy picks the most trite childish croutons you could possibly imagine.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

I understand that Chant is the norm for Liturgical worship. Does that mean that only chant may be used, or that Chant is what should normally be used? For example, would it be wrong to do mostly chant for the mass parts, and then do P&W songs for opening and closing?

I would be interested in seeing the relevant Vatican or USCCB documents. I would appreciate if someone would post them or post a link to them...thanks!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1308847618' post='2257715']
I understand that Chant is the norm for Liturgical worship. Does that mean that only chant may be used, or that Chant is what should normally be used? For example, would it be wrong to do mostly chant for the mass parts, and then do P&W songs for opening and closing?

I would be interested in seeing the relevant Vatican or USCCB documents. I would appreciate if someone would post them or post a link to them...thanks!
[/quote]
One thing it does mean (among others) is that all music is to be judged in terms of its appropriateness for Mass by how closely it follows the principles of Gregorian chant.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308842704' post='2257694']
Yes, persons can have legitimate views, as long as they are supported by the Church. I've asked for support from you on that position...can you provide any?
[/quote]

I'm strictly going off what I have learned at my time as Franciscan University. Sorry I can't text dump or something like that, but I don't exactly have the knowledge nor the resources for such things. If that isn't acceptable to you Cam, then I'm sorry.

[quote]
I don't disagree that there can be different forms of spirituality, but there are only two forms of worship in the Roman Rite. They are very regulated and very regimented. There is only one way to do each, without being abusive. Anything else is abusive, no matter how slight the variation. The point is that wavering is abusive. Heresy doesn't really apply in this case, unless the preaching at Holy Mass is heretical, then it most certainly does.

You claimed that praise and worship was appropriate. I said that chant is to be the norm. And then I supported it. I also bemoaned the fact that in so many places the norm is ignored. I also said that Catholic hymnody has no place in Holy Mass, because it is not proper to authentic worship as defined by the Church for a sung Mass. It is tolerated a low Mass, but since we don't really distinguish between the two any longer, it is hard to argue that point...and even then, the hymn should be sung in Latin first, then in the vernacular.

You said:

I think that my statement is pretty accurate when I asked:

I still would like to know....I can only assume the "stuffy" is what you consider to be stuffy music, ie. traditional forms of music in the Mass.
[/quote]

Ok, after going back to read the post where I typed 'stuffy' I meant to simply type 'stuff' so there's a typo that I overlooked my apologies. I never meant to irreverent to traditional forms of music in the Mass. Sorry that was purely a mis-type.

[quote]
Yes, the Church does grow organically, but that organic growth can only occur when it is authentic. It is clear that praise and worship music in the Mass is not authentic, neither is hymnody, btw. To chant the ordinaries and propers, with either organ or approved musical accompaniment the only acceptable way to musically worship at Mass. All other forms to a greater or lesser degree is not what the Church teaches, not what the Council Fathers ratified and supported, and therefore an abuse. You might not like it, but you do have to accept it. We assent our wills first to the mind of the Church and we learn.
[/quote]

Hmm so when does Authenticity end up being judged by laity though? I have heard plenty of non-traditional music played in such a way that would outshine chant (not speaking from personal preference). And when you get down with the intention all the music during the Mass is meant to elevate persons into worship of the Eucharist, so as long as the music is that means to elevate those persons in Worship then what is the quandary? I am not trying to digress this into a 'do whatever that works and makes you happy', but if the purpose is to Praise God during the Mass, then if the songs are done properly and kept in mind of the rubrics then why even protest?

And for the record, it's easy to assent when your preference is for this sort of music Cam. For those of us that don't it is easier said then done.

Sidenote to all of this, while we worry about all the externals....the intention should be called into question considering pure intention is much more valid then the 'form' things take. Excuse me if I am going off, but I tend to rely on my own mind/knowledge then other things at least in conversation such as this.

[Cam42]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1308847618' post='2257715']
I understand that Chant is the norm for Liturgical worship. Does that mean that only chant may be used, or that Chant is what should normally be used? For example, would it be wrong to do mostly chant for the mass parts, and then do P&W songs for opening and closing?

I would be interested in seeing the relevant Vatican or USCCB documents. I would appreciate if someone would post them or post a link to them...thanks!
[/quote]

Yes, that means that only chant may be used. I've posted the relevant documentation many times on this site. However, I will repost....

[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/17/DocumentIndex/360"]Tra Le Sollecitudini[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/17/DocumentIndex/385"]Musicae Sacrae Disciplina[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/17/DocumentIndex/243"]De Musica Sacra[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/17/DocumentIndex/433"]Musicam Sacram[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/17/DocumentIndex/408"]Voluntatis obsequens[/url]

With regard to specific posting, I will try to give a couple of snippets....

TLS #3:
[quote]On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down the following rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.[/quote]

TLS #6:
[quote]Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears less suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship is the theatrical style, which was in the greatest vogue, especially in Italy, during the last century. This of its very nature is diametrically opposed to Gregorian Chant and classic polyphony, and therefore to the most important law of all good sacred music. Besides the intrinsic structure, the rhythm and what is known as the conventionalism of this style adapt themselves but badly to the requirements of true liturgical music.[/quote]

MSD #3:
[quote]We hope, therefore, that what St. Pius X rightly decreed in the document which he accurately called the "legal code of sacred music[1] may be confirmed and inculcated anew, shown in a new light and strengthened by new proofs. We hope that the noble art of sacred music--adapted to contemporary conditions and in some way enriched--may ever more perfectly accomplish its mission.[/quote]

MSD#44:
[quote]It is the duty of all those to whom Christ the Lord has entrusted the task of guarding and dispensing the Church's riches to preserve this precious treasure of Gregorian chant diligently and to impart it generously to the Christian people. Hence what Our predecessors, St. Pius X, who is rightly called the renewer of Gregorian chant,[19] and Pius XI [20] have wisely ordained and taught, We also, in view of the outstanding qualities which genuine Gregorian chant possesses, will and prescribe that this be done. In the performance of the sacred liturgical rites this same Gregorian chant should be most widely used and great care should be taken that it should be performed properly, worthily and reverently. And if, because of recently instituted feast days, new Gregorian melodies must be composed, this should be done by true masters of the art. It should be done in such a way that these new compositions obey the laws proper to genuine Gregorian chant and are in worthy harmony with the older melodies in their virtue and purity.[/quote]

DMS#11-15:
[quote] 11. This instruction is binding on all rites of the Latin Church. Thus, what is said of Gregorian chant applies to all the chants which are used in other Latin rites.

Sacred music is to be taken generally in this instruction as embracing both vocal and instrumental music. But at times it will be limited to instrumental music only, as will be clear from the context.

A church ordinarily means any sacred place; this includes a church in the strict sense, as well as public, semipublic, and private oratories; again the context itself may restrict the meaning to a church in the strict sense.

12. Liturgical ceremonies are to be carried out as indicated in the liturgical books approved by the Holy See; this applies to the universal Church, to particular churches, and to religious communities (cf. canon 1257). Private devotions, however, may be conducted according to local or community customs if they have been approved by competent ecclesiastical authority (cf. canon 1259).

Liturgical ceremonies, and private devotions are not to be mixed; but if the situation allows, such devotions may either precede or follow a liturgical ceremony.

13. a) Latin is the language of liturgical ceremonies; however, the liturgical books mentioned above, if they have been approved for general use or for a particular place or community, may make use of another language for certain liturgical ceremonies, and in such cases, this will be explicitly stated. Any exceptions to the general rule of Latin will be mentioned later in this Instruction.

b) Special permission is needed for the use of the vernacular which is a word-for-word translation in the celebration of sung liturgical ceremonies (Motu proprio [i]Inter sollicitudines[/i] AAS 36 [1903-1904] 334; Decr. auth. S.R.C. 4121).

c) Individual exceptions to the exclusive use of Latin in liturgical ceremonies which have already been granted by the Holy See still remain in effect. These permissions are not to be modified in their meaning nor extended to other regions without authorization from the Holy See.

d) In private devotions any language more suited to the faithful may be used.

14. a) In sung Masses only Latin is to be used. This applies not only to the celebrant, and his ministers, but also to the choir or congregation.

"However, popular vernacular hymns may be sung at the solemn Eucharistic Sacrifice (sung Masses), after the liturgical texts have been sung in Latin, in those places where such a centenary or immemorial custom has obtained. Local ordinaries may permit the continuation of this custom 'if they judge that it cannot prudently be discontinued because of the circumstances of the locality or the people' (cf. canon 5)" ([i]Musicæ sacræ disciplina[/i]: AAS 48 [1956] 16-17).

b) At low Mass the faithful who participate directly in the liturgical ceremonies with the celebrant by reciting aloud the parts of the Mass which belong to them must, along with the priest and his server, use Latin exclusively.

But if, in addition to this direct participation in the liturgy, the faithful wish to add some prayers or popular hymns, according to local custom, these may be recited or sung in the vernacular.

c) It is strictly forbidden for the faithful in unison or for a commentator to recite aloud with the priest the parts of the Proper, Ordinary, and canon of the Mass. This prohibition extends to both Latin, and a vernacular word-for-word translation. Exceptions will be enumerated in paragraph 31.

However, it is desirable that a lector read the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular for the benefit of the faithful at low Masses on Sundays and feast days.

Between the Consecration, and the [i]Pater noster[/i] a holy silence is fitting.

[/quote]


MS#33:
[quote]The assembly of the faithful should, as far as possible, have a part in singing the Proper of the Mass, especially by use of the simpler responses or other appropriate melodies. Of all the chants for the Proper the one coming between the readings as a gradual or responsorial psalm is particularly significant. It is intrinsically a part of the liturgy of the word and thus is to be sung with the whole assembly sitting, listening, and even, if possible, taking part.

[/quote]

VO para.1:
[quote]This was done in response to a desire which the Holy Father had frequently expressed, that all the faithful should know at least some Latin Gregorian chants, such as, for example, the [i]Gloria[/i], the [i]Credo[/i], the [i]Sanctus[/i] and the [i]Agnus Dei[/i]. [1] It gives me great pleasure to send you a copy of it, as a personal gift from His Holiness, Pope Paul VI. May I take this opportunity of recommending to your pastoral solicitude this new initiative, whose purpose is to facilitate the observance of the recommendation of the Second Vatican Council: ". . . steps must be taken to ensure that the faithful are able to say or chant together in Latin those parts of the ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. [2]

[/quote]

VO para. 9-10:
[quote]This minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant has been prepared with that purpose in mind: to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living tradition of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse Gregorian chant the place which is due to it. And this becomes all the more imperative as we approach the Holy Year of 1975, during which the faithful of different languages, nations and origins, will find themselves side by side for the common celebration of the Lord.

Those who because of their special vocation in the Church need to have a deeper knowledge of sacred music ought to be particularly careful to observe as proper balance between popular chant and Gregorian chant. For this reason the Holy Father recommended that "Gregorian chant be preserved and be sung in monasteries, other religious houses and seminaries, as a special form of chanted prayer and as something of high cultural and pedagogic value."[/quote]

While this certainly isn't exhaustive, it certainly gives a clear view of where Chant is supposed to be with regard to the Mass...also, as we see, the former documents are supported up through including and after Vatican Council II...so Chant is intended to be the normative action. The fact that it is not, lends one to assume that the abandonment of Chant in the Mass is abusive and not at all what Holy Mother Church has intended.

[Cam42]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1308850157' post='2257732']

[...]

Hmm so when does Authenticity end up being judged by laity though? I have heard plenty of non-traditional music played in such a way that would outshine chant (not speaking from personal preference). And when you get down with the intention all the music during the Mass is meant to elevate persons into worship of the Eucharist, so as long as the music is that means to elevate those persons in Worship then what is the quandary? I am not trying to digress this into a 'do whatever that works and makes you happy', but if the purpose is to Praise God during the Mass, then if the songs are done properly and kept in mind of the rubrics then why even protest?

And for the record, it's easy to assent when your preference is for this sort of music Cam. For those of us that don't it is easier said then done.

Sidenote to all of this, while we worry about all the externals....the intention should be called into question considering pure intention is much more valid then the 'form' things take. Excuse me if I am going off, but I tend to rely on my own mind/knowledge then other things at least in conversation such as this.
[/quote]

I am not going to comment any further on your personal view, because to be completely honest, it is yours and I really don't care, nor do I have a right to judge. What I can speak to though is what is going on with regard to the mind of the Church....so I will speak to that...

Authenticity is NEVER judged by the laity. Authenticity is a matter for the Church to decide and to catechize the faithful on. Outside of that, we must simply trust in the Church. But when her members obfuscate the meanings, then we must take issue. We simply must. And when we get to intention, yes....but the intention is not ours, it is the Church's. We are to accept that and learn from that. The Mass does not belong to any one person, but to assume that the music should appeal to one in particular, then you cease to have participatio actuosa and simply have pariticipatio activa. That is never good. There is no quandry, if you simply do what the Church asks, then you are clear in your intention. Praise and worship is not suited to the Mass. It never has been and it never will be. Look at the Church's intetntion in the post above and you'll see a whole lot written about Sacred music and nothing written about praise and worship. Properly speaking, Gregorian Chant raises one most perfectly in the Mass....so that is what should be sung.

While I do agree with this reasoning, I don't agree with it because it is my personal opinion or because I hate praise and worship. I agree because the Church says it is what we should be doing....I actually like praise and worship music as long as it fits with Catholic thinking. Heck, jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) is one of my favorite guitarists, but I will argue with him until the day that he dies (or me, whoever goes first) that it isn't apt for Mass.

But, to be subjected to something inferior for 40+ years now, while being told that it is the way things should be done....that is not authentic. The St. Louis Jesuits, Fr. J. Michael Joncas, Marty Haugen and David Haas, among others have misinterpreted the meaning of sacred music and hi-jacked our musical heritage. But, by and large, that is all we've been able to hear at Mass, so please don't tell me that it has been easy supporting this stuff....also, I essentially was blackballed from Campus Ministry in college for holding this line....this has NOT been easy for me....not one bit. I support it, because it is authentic. I oppose the other side, because it is innovative. There is no room for innovation in the Church.

Finally, when we internalize the externals, it is precisely that which lifts our minds and souls to God. For it is through the externals that we engage our senses while worshiping....We find function in form within the Church.....a bit of advice (and I mean this sincerely), learn what participatio activa v. pariticipatio actuosa really means...once you do that, you might change your tune on the last paragraph. No lie.

[Noel's angel]

No, it doesn't mean that only chant should be used:

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. (Sacrosanctum Concilium)


B. Modern sacred music.
50. Modern compositions of sacred music are only to be used during liturgical ceremonies if they conform to the spirit of the liturgy, and to the ideals of sacred music as laid down in the encyclical Musicæ sacræ disciplina (AAS 48 [1956] 19-20). Judgments in this matter are to be made by the diocesan commission of sacred music.
C. Popular Religious Song
51. Hymns ought to be highly encouraged, and fostered, for this form of music does much to imbue the Christian with a deep religious spirit, and to raise the thoughts of the faithful to the truths of our faith.
Hymns have their own part to play in all the festive solemnities of Christian life, whether public or of a more personal nature; they also find their part in the daily labors of the Christian. But they attain their ideal usefulness in all private devotions, whether conducted outside or inside the church. At times their use is even permitted during liturgical functions, in accord with the directions given above in paragraphs 13-15. (De Musica Sacra)


Cam was just being very selective in what he quoted

It does say chant is by far the ideal, but other music may be used as long as it 'conforms to the spirit of the liturgy'.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Noel's angel

[Cam42]

[quote name='Noel's angel' timestamp='1308852405' post='2257742']
No, it doesn't mean that only chant should be used:

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. (Sacrosanctum Concilium)


B. Modern sacred music.
50. Modern compositions of sacred music are only to be used during liturgical ceremonies if they conform to the spirit of the liturgy, and to the ideals of sacred music as laid down in the encyclical Musicæ sacræ disciplina (AAS 48 [1956] 19-20). Judgments in this matter are to be made by the diocesan commission of sacred music.
C. Popular Religious Song
51. Hymns ought to be highly encouraged, and fostered, for this form of music does much to imbue the Christian with a deep religious spirit, and to raise the thoughts of the faithful to the truths of our faith.
Hymns have their own part to play in all the festive solemnities of Christian life, whether public or of a more personal nature; they also find their part in the daily labors of the Christian. But they attain their ideal usefulness in all private devotions, whether conducted outside or inside the church. At times their use is even permitted during liturgical functions, in accord with the directions given above in paragraphs 13-15. (De Musica Sacra)


Cam was just being very selective in what he quoted

It does say chant is by far the ideal, but other music may be used as long as it 'conforms to the spirit of the liturgy'.
[/quote]

Everything you just quoted supports my position....

Show me how praise and worship music is in accord with "the Spirit of the Liturgy?" The Spirit of the Liturgy is Gregorian chant and polyphony, not the St. Louis Jesuits...

As far as your second quote goes, the Spirit of the Liturgy as defined by MSD #19-20 is:
[quote]19. Our predecessors Leo XII, Pius VII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII[13] followed the same line.

20. Nevertheless it can rightly be said that Our predecessor of immortal memory, St. Pius X, made as it were the highest contribution to the reform and renewal of sacred music when he restated the principles and standards handed down from the elders and wisely brought them together as the conditions of modern times demanded.[14] Finally, like Our immediate predecessor of happy memory, Pius XI, in his Apostolic Constitution Divini cultus sanctitatem (The Holiness of Divine Worship), issued December 20, 1929,[15] We ourself in the encyclical Mediator Dei (On the Sacred Liturgy), issued November 20, 1947,[16] have enriched and confirmed the orders of the older Pontiffs.

[/quote]
Source above....and I don't think that Bernadette Farrell and Dan Schutte were what they had in mind. I do think that Gregorian Chant and Mozart were though.

As for hymns...I'll quote your quote....

[quote]But they attain their ideal usefulness in all private devotions, whether conducted outside or inside the church. At times their use is even permitted during liturgical functions, in accord with the directions given above in paragraphs 13-15.[/quote]

So, unless it's 2058, look at what I quoted in the post above with regard to #14, you'll see that it is either 100 years or immemorial custom and to be honest 1965 doesn't equate immemorial custom with regard to the Mass, especially when the Mass as the basic liturgical action we have in both the EF and OF can be traced to the 5th century AD....

I wasn't being selective...I was just not being exhaustive.....big difference.

The "Spirit of the Liturgy" can only be defined by the Church, not by her faithful....the documentation which spans the modern era supports my position on the authentic spirit of the liturgy....

Edited June 23, 2011 by Cam42

[Noel's angel]

When did I say praise and worship WAS appropriate? You were asked if only chant is acceptable. You said 'yes', when clearly the documents say it isn't the only form of music that is acceptable. Mozart isn't Gregorian chant.

[CatherineM]

I wonder what kind of music was used before Gregorian chant was invented? Do you supposed people opposed chant at the time as being too "innovative?"

[Cam42]

[quote name='Noel's angel' timestamp='1308853518' post='2257744']
When did I say praise and worship WAS appropriate? You were asked if only chant is acceptable. You said 'yes', when clearly the documents say it isn't the only form of music that is acceptable. Mozart isn't Gregorian chant.
[/quote]

That is not where you were going with that though....nice about face...quick thinking....I like it.

The question revolved around p & w hymns. Polyphony as defined, which includes the great Vianese Masses are not hymnody, they are the ordinaries of the Mass. So, while they are not Chant, the use of chant is still necessary and the use of chant is still required....for example....the celebrant should still be chanting the ordinaries while the faithful engage the polyphony....for example...regardless of what gloria is sung...the celebrant should always intone with chant...