The Recovering Choir Director

Having recently imagined Masses VIII, IX and XI accompanied by an orchestra, rondalla, koto, and solitary guitar, and finding merit in all arrangements, I would like to invite all readers to explore Sacrosanctum Concilium’s call for what I see as a judicious liberalization (yet to be fully realized, in my opinion) of the use of musical instruments in the Sacred Liturgy to assist sung prayer. Our launching point will be Sacrosanctum Concilium 120 and 121, and the other articles that they cite.

Article 120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.

But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22 §2, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.

Article 22 §2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

Article 37. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.

Article 40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.

Article 121. Composers, filled with the Christian spirit, should feel that their vocation is to cultivate sacred music and increase its store of treasures.

Let them produce compositions which have the qualities proper to genuine sacred music, not confining themselves to works which can be sung only by large choirs, but providing also for the needs of small choirs and for the active participation of the entire assembly of the faithful.

The texts intended to be sung must always be in conformity with Catholic doctrine; indeed they should be drawn chiefly from holy scripture and from liturgical sources.

Based on study of Sacrosanctum Concilium, today’s church environment (as I see it), and my bias for a closer interpretation of musical norms as laid down in US-GIRM 2002, my starting positions are these:

• Compositions, arrangements and instrumentations must serve to enhance worship of God rather than calling attention to themselves.
• Compositions should be accessible to instrumentalists, allowing for quick mastery of the notes and a reasonable level of refinement with a minimal use of time. For high holy days, a greater complexity may be suitable, so long as the composition does not detract from the spirit of the liturgical action.
• Instruments that have a popular reputation of calling attention to themselves when played, or do not have a long history of use within a religious context, must be employed by composers with extreme care, if at all.
• Gregorian Chant, especially the Ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus/Benedictus, Agnus Dei) and the Lord’s Prayer, may be accompanied by instruments other than the pipe organ if necessary or desirable; such practice may serve as a starting point for effective inculturation. The organ accompaniments provided by Solesmes do well to serve as a starting point for instrumental arrangements.
• The Latin responses and dialogues may be accompanied by melody instruments in melodic and rhythmic unison with the people.
• Composers should focus on composing settings of the propers (Introit, Psalm/Gradual, Offertory, and Communion) instead of composing texts for hymns.
• Regardless of aesthetic style or instrumentation, compositions that are not based on holy scripture or liturgical texts, and/or appear in their translation to implicitly promote a linguistic agenda, run a greater risk of being seen as self-serving. This is precisely due to their non-integration with the liturgy and/or lack of faithfulness to the approved vernacular translation as prescribed by the Church.
• The proper antiphons may be in Latin or an approved vernacular translation. If an approved vernacular translation is employed, the composition must be melodically and rhythmically accessible to the people.
• If the proper antiphons are in Latin, the psalm verses between the propers may be better sung in the vernacular. Regardless of the language, standard patterns of melodic or harmonic formulas (such as psalm tones, falsobordoni, or even simple polyphony) will help to facilitate the sung praying and accompaniment of the psalm verses, as well as technical mastery of the music.

As far as I am aware, none of the above positions contradict the pronouncements of the USCCB Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy (a.k.a. the “competent territorial body of bishops legitimately established” as stated in SC 22 §2) found in Music in Catholic Worship and Liturgical Music Today.

This post is not intended as an exercise in dry legalism; rather, it hopes to outline a more specific plan of action regarding the “reform of the reform” while giving equal consideration to what the Church asks of her members regarding the liturgy and what she allows in terms of pastoral sensitivity. Of course, I’m not the “competent ecclesiastical authority”, so these points carry no more than the weight of suggestion.