« Previous: Catholic Church Music, forty-eight years later (Part II of a series)
Next: Catholic Church Music, forty-eight years later (Part IV of a series) »

Catholic Church Music, forty-eight years later (Part III of a series)

The second part of Chapter 1 of Paul Hume’s Catholic Church Music covers the background behind liturgical music abuses at the parish level. Although he mentions that papal writings on sacred music have been well-publicized, Hume goes on to state:

Of all ecclesiastical matters regulated by official legislation, music is the only one I can think of that seems wide open to the quite atypical doctrine of “free interpretation”—any old interpretation, it seems. Yet this every-conscience-is-on-its-own approach to Catholic Church music operates in the face of plentiful and specific authority, for at least nine Popes and one General Council have spoken on the subject, amplified by innumerable decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

After summarizing and highlighting the legislation of sacred music laid down by Pope St. Pius X’s 1903 motu proprio Tra le sollicitudini and confirmed by Pope Pius XI’s 1928 Apostolic Constitution Divini Cultus Sanctitatem, Hume asks:

…Why is it that in so many parishes today the music is regulated, not according to the legislation of the Church, but strictly according to the whim of the pastor?

(I assume that when he writes of the “whim of the pastor”, what he has in mind is the pastor who is acting contrary to the will of the Church regarding sacred music.)

He is encouraged by Pope Pius XII’s 1955 encyclical Musicae sacrae disciplina, which confirms the ‘legal code of sacred music’ laid down by his predecessor St. Pius X, and yet he realizes that the most diocesan chanceries are ill-equipped to legislate sacred music. Thus, the quality of music at a parish largely rests on the pastor’s conscientiousness in addressing it according to the mind of the Church.

Thoughts:

  • Certain interpretations of the documents of Vatican II and the latest General Instruction seem to justify a “free interpretation” of norms for sacred music.
  • Although diocesan offices of worship seem to be more numerous nowadays, much of the advice often contradicts prior writings that should carry more weight.
  • Still, official documents on sacred music are much more readily available now than at the time of this book’s publication.
  • The musically conscientious pastor has a tough row to hoe. Is sacred music addressed in seminary at all?
  • Hume asks the question, “Is the Motu Proprio binding in conscience?” While this question is addressed in an appendix (and in the affirmative), what are reader’s thoughts on this?

Posted 05.27.2004
by Aristotle A. Esguerra
4 comments.
Filed under: Book Excerpts; Catholic Church Music (Hume).

Leave a Reply




*Required. E-Mail will not be published.


*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

4 Comments

I read the Motu Proprio since I have never done so before. I see three things, right off the bat, that prevent it from being “binding on conscience”…. presumably, the local ordinary’s conscience.
1) Singing liturgies in the vernacular clearly has to be allowed since this document precedes the Novus Ordo Mass and the change in the Liturgy of the Hours.
2) For some time now, women and girls have been permitted to sing at liturgies and the roof has stayed on the Church.
3) Restricting the “choice” of instrument accompanying the voices solely to the organ is going to be a hard one to go back to. No bells? No brass even on Easter?
What is the purpose for such strictness? Are the ancient forms to be the ONLY thing permitted? What would have happened to Palestrina if only Gregorian Chant were allowed in his day? Heck. What would have happened to Gregorian chant if what was used before that (Jewish forms?) were the only thing permitted? What happens to “sing a new song unto the Lord”? Don’t get me wrong: I hate “secular” music during the liturgy too. But I don’t think trying to turn back the clock more than a century (or is it four centuries?) is the answer.


Ruthann
05.27.2004 @ 4:14 pm #

This is now the second time in a week that I’ve read someone asserting that to restrict instruments means to restrict using bells. Am I missing something? Are we talking about the church bells in the tower or the bells rung at the Consecration? These aren’t used to accompany music. Or, are the use of hand bells so ubiquitous in America that they have already become a sacred cow, so to speak, that some cannot even imagine their use ever being terminated? Someone please clarify.


Paul Rex
05.28.2004 @ 12:05 am #

19. È proibito in chiesa l’uso del pianoforte, come pure quello degli strumenti fragorosi o leggeri, quali sono il tamburo, la grancassa, i piatti, i campanelli e simili.

“… the tomtoms, the bass drum, cymbals, (little) bells, and suchlike.”

The Saint is here describing the percussion section of a village band. Cf. paragraphs 20-21. Village bands in many countries have accompanied religious processions, but then they are usually to leave their musicianship in the square outside the church. Which they might not mind after marching a mile or few.

In my experience, I would think of i campanelli as a “glockenspiel,” which, as any band nerd knows, is also simply referred to as “the bells.” The glockenspiel can be heard above the entire band; only in a very large band is there more than one.

Mother taught us about the difference between our outdoor voice and our indoor voice, did she not?

By the way, of course the motu propio is binding on the conscience. Even on the American conscience! However, it must be interpreted in light of later documents, especially last year’s papal chirograph on the occasion of its centennial.


Daniel Muller
05.28.2004 @ 1:28 am #

At the seminary I attended, there were two courses on music, both of them mandatory. One took classical music as its subject, the other, sacred. From what I understand, the courses themselves were thorough and well-done.

The problem was that at Morning/Evening prayer and at community Masses, we used the Gather hymnal, the banal bane of every traditional-minded Catholic. Any suggestions that we sing sacred music were generally ignored, in spite of the fact that more than a few seminarians (like myself) deeply desire authentic liturgical music. Bad liturgy is, in fact, one of several reasons why I left seminary.


John
05.29.2004 @ 11:49 am #

« Previous: Catholic Church Music, forty-eight years later (Part II of a series)
Next: Catholic Church Music, forty-eight years later (Part IV of a series) »
A Musical Journey through GIRM