Musicam Sacram: Preference for sung Masses; degrees of sung participation; my observations of 30 years
Below are primary-source citations from the Church’s 1967 Instruction on Music in the Liturgy Musicam Sacram outlining the Church’s preference for the sung Liturgy, the degrees by which a parish may move toward the sung Mass, and my own observations of how faithful the members of the Church have been in instituting the sung Mass.
26. The priest, the sacred ministers and the servers, the reader and those in the choir, and also the commentator, should perform the parts assigned to them in a way which is comprehensible to the people, in order that the responses of the people, when the rite requires it, may be made easy and spontaneous. It is desirable that the priest, and the ministers of every degree, should join their voices to the voice of the whole faithful in those parts which concern the people [i.e., Ordinary and Proper, or proper substitutes].
27. For the celebration of the Eucharist with the people, especially on Sundays and feast days [but not just on those occasions], a form of sung Mass (Missa in cantu) is to be preferred as much as possible, even several times on the same day. [This preference has largely gone ignored, strictly speaking.]
28. The distinction between solemn, sung and read Mass, sanctioned by the Instruction of 1958 (n. 3) [De musica sacra], is retained, according to the traditional liturgical laws at present in force. However, for the sung Mass (Missa cantata), different degrees of participation are put forward here for reasons of pastoral usefulness, so that it may become easier to make the celebration of Mass more beautiful by singing, according to the capabilities of each congregation.
These degrees are so arranged that the first may be used even by itself, but the second and third, wholly or partially, may never be used without the first. In this way the faithful will be continually led toward an ever greater participation in the singing.
29. The following belong to the first degree [most are in place — this degree largely falls on the priest]:
(a) In the entrance rites: the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the [opening] prayer.
(b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the acclamations at the Gospel.
(c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: [How many priests can sing all of the following? My unscientific data from 30+ years of assisting at Ordinary-Form Masses follow:] the prayer over the offerings [next to none of them]; the preface [few] with its dialogue [few] and the Sanctus [yes, in concert with the congregation]; the final doxology of the Canon [maybe less than half of them?], the Lord’s Prayer [few] with its introduction [next to none] and embolism [next to none]; the Pax Domini [next to none]; the prayer after the Communion [next to none]; the formulas of dismissal [next to none].
[In short: if the priest desires to faithfully implement the sung Mass; he, by learning the parts that pertain to him, must lead by example. He cannot outsource the duty that is his alone to execute.]
30. The following belong to the second degree [this degree involves the people more]:
(a) the Kyrie [in many places, the recited Form-C litanic Kyrie is still the norm. Why?], Gloria [a significant number of Sunday Masses I have attended have featured a recited Gloria] and Agnus Dei [but at least this is sung more often than not];
(b) the Creed; [this will be a major undertaking, but doable. One is much more likely to encounter a sung Creed during Extraordinary-Form Masses. More and more frequently this will be sung congregationally.]
(c) the prayer of the faithful [though there are formulas to sing these, it is rarely fully-sung].
31. The following belong to the third degree [this degree involves the people more]:
(a) the songs at the Entrance and Communion processions [current Ordinary-Form practice employs substitutes for the songs called for by the liturgy];
(b) the songs after the Lesson or Epistle [a.k.a. the Responsorial Psalm, usually sung, but not always];
(c) the Alleluia before the Gospel [usually sung, but not always];
(d) the song at the Offertory [current Ordinary-Form practice employs substitutes for the songs called for by the liturgy];
(e) the readings of Sacred Scripture, unless it seems more suitable to proclaim them without singing. [I have heard the Gospel sung at Ordinary-Form Masses only a handful of times in my life.]
[While Vatican II and its Instruction on Music in the Liturgy prefers the sung Mass to the recited (spoken) Mass, the less-preferred recited Mass has been the de facto norm since the Council's close over a generation ago. What happens when the exception is made the norm?…]
![[Modal Responsorial Psalms - Esguerra]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Lectionary_Psalms.png)




So glad to see that you are still writing, and still writing good things. I hope to be able to follow your example soon.
I note that in Musicam Sacram (as have you) that the chanted conversation between priest and congregation were to be done before any of the other chants. I suspect that this is what the council fathers meant when they said that Gregorian Chant was to be given ‘pride of place’ in all liturgical gatherings.
I note also (as do you) that the above instruction has either been ignored or disobeyed in most RC liturgical gatherings where music takes a part in it.
I have written an essay in which the thesis is that it has been the failure of the RC hierarchy to implement the real reforms of Vatican II that has been at the root of the recent rot in the Church (http://pauca_lux_ex_oriente.blogspot.com/2009/03/sacrifice-of-cain.html). I would invite you to read it.
I suspect that it is the failure of our priests and bishops to implement Musicam Sacram and the other documents regarding church music in Vatican II that is the cause of the unfortunate state of church music at present.
Bernard;
I would totally agree with your final conclusion. My conclusion is that it wasn’t seen as a priority because it was so strongly assumed that chant would emerge as the primary form of liturgical music given the emphasis placed on it by the concilliar documents. In other words, the ball was dropped because it wasn’t seen as something that would require immediate attention as would the new form of the liturgy, the vernacular and the very vague sense of “participation”.
I see in recent trends a move towards greater scrutiny of post concilliar practices and a greater willingness to move towards “correction”, particularly in the younger clergy and seminarians. This will ultimately be the route that reform will take.