Sing to the lord usccb pdf download

So I say that the analysis will be worth it. In fact, one of my initial hopes for initiating this thread is that an emotionally detached analysis of "Sing to the Lord" will take place; perhaps the basis for an in-depth article will result.

Darcy December Posts: My impressions - first, the big stinker that kept resurfacing was a reference to "multicultural pluralism" and "pastoral sensitivity. In general, the primacy of being "pastoral" makes all music choices subjective to the individual situation. Another thing that jumped out at me was the insistance of the primacy of congregational singing. Some congregations are able to learn more quickly and will desire more variety. Others will be more comfortable with a stable number of songs so that they can be at ease when they sing.

Familiarity with a stable repertoire of liturgical songs rich in theological content can deepen the faith of the community through repetition and memorization. It becomes clear that the choir should sing a bare minimum of the liturgical music, leaving that job to the congregation: "The choir must not minimize the musical participation of the faithful. The congregation commonly sings unison melodies, which are more suitable for generally unrehearsed community singing. This is the primary song of the Liturgy After all the good information I've absorbed from the CMAA since joining getting close to a year ago , by comparison "Sing to the Lord" is a self-contradicting and apparently politically negotiated document that claims to give guidelines that could be implemented in a parish, and winds up being just a frustrating read.

I did not read the previous bishop's document for comparison, though no doubt it was worse. They are making some baby steps in the USCCB, but thankfully the grass-roots sacred music movement seems to be Holy Spirit-driven and is making some real progress, judging by the chant workshops and success of the colloquium.

And there continues to be reassurance from the liturgical practices in Rome and statements of Pope Benedict that affirm the authentic Church teaching on sacred music, which is easy to access and understand.

It helps discern the meat from the fluff in a document like this. In considering the use of the treasures of chant, pastors and liturgical musicians should take care that the congregation is able to participate in the Liturgy with song.

They should be sensitive to the cultural and spiritual milieu of their communities, in order to build up the Church in unity and peace. I think our interpretation of the phrase is the same; I'll submit that my interpretation of this paragraph plays a bit faster and looser regarding "other styles of music". I sure would like to know if others have written on this.

It suddenly seems to matter a great deal. Jeffery, I have a great deal of respect for your positions, and especially items I have read that you have authored. I'm reminded of the quote from your Top Ten Unknown Truths: "ceteris paribus does not mean: unless you don't like it.

It seems to me that some of the conditions you refer to that make the use of chant unviable are the direct result of the actions or inactions of the bishops themselves. They have permitted ill-suited, accoustically unfriendly not to mention liturgically unfriendly "worship spaces" to be designed and built in their dioceses. Parish priests who were trained since Vatican II have little to no knowledge, exposure or experience with chant.

Not to mention language. Latin, at least at the seminary in our diocese, is not mandatory. Spanish, however, is. At the parish level, the pastors tend to not pay attention to what is being taught regarding music in the parochial schools. I can pretty much guess that few parochial schools that do have a music teacher have one that knows anything about the music of the tradition.

Thus our schools are raising yet another generation of people who will be unable to sing chant, or develop a kind of prejudice against it vis a vis the music typically used for "school Masses. The cultivation of deep skills in music for the "pastoral musician" simply isn't encouraged, let alone mentioned at any level. There's plenty of concern for "being pastoral," little for being musically trained and disciplined. By design the use of chant at the parish level is going to be fraught with struggles, if not out and out roadblocks.

We can insist on the ideal all we want, and ever shall it remain, the ideal. I'm 30 pounds over my ideal weight. I have two choices: take the actions necessary to loose it, or, "other things being equal," suffer the consequences of my inaction. Wishing to be thinner has never worked for me, despite knowing what the ideal is. Wishing that chant would be the norm for music in the liturgy won't work either, no matter how much we know what the ideal is.

Gavin December Posts: 2, I tend to read "all other things being equal" precisely as the bishops do here. Then I'd get in a Lambourghini bought with all the money my boss is paying me for my work and drive home. However, all things are not equal. What are the other factors? Choir ability, congregational maturity level, abilities of the director, accoustic properties of the building, the proper celebration of Mass by the priest, and many other things, yes even including the actual demand for chant from the congregation!

Again I speak of the pastoral judgment because it would be totally right, legal, and legit for Jeff and a schola to walk into St.

Happy of Clappy Catholic Community! The result would be that the congregation would no doubt be disgusted, the established musicians offended, and Jeff would probably get run out of the state Guitarville.

And chant would not have held pride of place there because it would be felt as an imposition by all, from Fr. Friendly to the old feminist nun in street clothes. Now there's other situations besides "reform" parishes that need to exercise judgment in employing chant such as missions, Masses with special groups such as children, and the need for diversity in music such as polyphony, hymnody, and other sacred genres.

Note that none of these means that chant has NO place. Even for a mission, I'd argue one should not only utilize relevant material but also use chant as a sign of what's being introduced to the people as part of the Faith.

I'd say it just means that chant should always have a place in the liturgy, but exactly how big of a role it plays is dependent on many factors. I always cringed a little when I heard "other things being equal" along with the "pride of place" statement because it sounded way too open to interpretation.

Yet when it is quoted by church documents or faithful priests, the context is clear - that Gregorian chant is simply the most appropriate, most approved of, sacred music for the Roman Rite. I always took the "other things being equal" to mean other forms of music beyond chant and polyphony. He takes it from the perspective of hierarchy of options given for the introit by the GIRM; it is a further clarification on what Vatican II said.

I suspect that most Catholics would say that the choice of music for the entrance procession is easy: you just pick a hymn! For those of you who attend weekday Mass, it is the antiphon that we recite together at the beginning of the Mass as the priest makes his way to the presidential chair. Note that the text is almost always taken right from the Scriptures while occasionally it is from the prayers of the liturgy itself.

Noteworthy, also, is that it is an antiphon. In other words, it unfolds in a manner like that of the Responsorial Psalm with which we have become so familiar at Mass.

The General Instruction goes on to say that the first choice for the music to which the text is set is taken from the Roman Gradual. Perhaps the following comparison will be of help to understand the import of the Roman Gradual. The Lectionary is the official book containing the selections from the Scriptures to be read by the lector and priest or deacon at Mass during the course of the Church year.

The publication of the new Roman Gradual and Lectionary were part of the revision of the liturgical books according to the renewal desired by the Second Vatican Council If there were any serious intention on the committee's part to promote Gregorian Chant, I would think they would have provided more specific direction on how to overcome the hurdles and emphasize that "pride of place" is not to be taken lightly.

But this is just a baby step in that direction I still think the authentic renewal of sacred music is going to come is already coming with the help of the Holy Spirit from the laity and a handful of supportive clergy without the help of the USCCB.

Jeffrey, would you please expand, for someone who's a complete novice to chant in general, on your comment about wrt USCCB document's recommendation of using Liber Hymnarius as a standard.

While 'standards' always freeze matters for which there can be valid disagreement, surely if chant is to be more generally available to the community as a whole then having some standard version is beneficial?

I'm reminded of the story of someone critizing John Wesley's methods of evangelism to which he replied "I'm unsatisfied with them too, what methods do you find more useful? I think I'll wait until I can get my Hymnarius in front of me, but briefly, my understanding is that this volume was prepared with an overt purposes of jettisoning the work of the classical Solesmes approach.

It has been the rallying cry of some for this reason, while others find it not useful. But I'm going to reserve further comment until I can give some examples. It would've been helpful for Solesmes to issue a sort of "errata" document regarding these melodies, so we could see very precisely the extent of their revisions. I would bet that the scale of the revisions were actually quite small. Dots and episemas still appear, as do occasional ictuses.

The number of instances of new neumes is actually fairly small. It's not like you'll open the book and be startled by novelties. My experience was just the opposite. Maybe those who know previous books of these melodies will be able to speak more precisely about the scale of revision when it comes to actual pitch changes.

I'm also inclined to think the use of neumes with "initio debilis" and so forth, along with the new oriscus, are over-specifications of rhythm that are likely to be lost in all but the most scrupulous academic performances anyway. So like Jeffrey, I don't see the LH as a radical project. I will confess from the outset that I am a newcomer to the scholarship of chant, so please forgive me for being a bit confused. I own a copy of the LH, and it contains hymns and the like to be used for the Divine Offices, rendered in square notation.

A section and paragraph reference would be helpful. At any rate, I wasn't aware that there was any controversy surrounding its publication overt attempt to jettison the classical Solesmes style. I am intrigued by the question of just how much tinkering with the original chants was done by Solesmes. A friend of mine who uses chant regularly at his church has been asking this question aloud for some time. I'm not sure where a good answer can be found. I'm also not sure just how much direct value can be attributed to the work of Solesmes from a scholarship standpoint.

It would appear that in some camps to challenge anything that comes from Solesmes is tantamount to heresy. I would also add that Fr. Meinrad Archabbey has done extensive research in Gregorian chant, primarily in the areas of semiology and rhetoric, but also including work on translating several very important treatises on the interpretation of chant.

It may be worth looking into his work, as some of the answers might be there. As an aside, I would wonder why the Gregorian Missal for Sundays, published by Solesmes in wouldn't be more worth discussion as against the LH, given that is specifically contains the appointed chants for the Mass.

A thought occurred to me about "Sing to the Lord", specifically the part about inserting tropes in the Agnus dei someone can post the relevant passage, perhaps. It seems to me that the bishops are objectively wrong on this. Sacrosanctam Concillium says, "no person, even if he be a priest, may change the words of the Mass. Would this not fall under SC's rule? I understand there are some parts of the Mass which may be authored by laymen or priests, such as the Intercessions, but the Agnus Dei, unless so specified in the Missal, rubrics, or GIRM, doesn't strike me as one of those parts.

Therefore we can conclude there is at least one plain and unavoidable error in the document. Gavin, that seems right to me. On the Hymnarius, I really am not on solid ground here.

I need to get my copy and dig up material on it. I should probably scratch what I said above, since it is based on memory and conjecture and nothing really solid. I too find it interesting that the Gregorian Missal employs all the classical approaches. To get down to a concrete example, suppose one's wanting to sing Vox clara ecce intonat then where does one go for the melody?

I think that's all the document intends and does not mean to takes sides between Mocquereau and Cardine. An example that comes to mind is "Conditor alme siderum. I think STL is saying if we're going to set a vernacular text for this tune or by extension compose a choral piece based on it , that we should agree on a standard version. While the statement about the Hymnarius deals with strophic hymns, the idea could be extended to other chants.

It is based on "Parce, Domine" and might not have been a bad way to sneek a chant melody into a contemporary praise service without causing too much upset. But, unfortunately, he tags on an extra line of music so he can include something about "justice like a river. Glad to hear we have agreement on it.

Now I don't like all the discussion over what-has-force-what-doesn't-what-has-higher-force-than-something-else, because the goal of that is often to either portray the Church as something other than united or to ignore legislation that one doesn't like if you want to play coy about that, remember liberals use the same logic to ignore musicam sacram.

That said, we have a plain, bald-faced contradiction of Sacrosanctam Concillium here. It is, after all, a document of the US Bishops, and my understanding is that bishops have some jurisdiction over the Mass. If not, are we then still free to visit other parishes and, however supremely jerky it may be, tell people "you're not supposed to do that"? On troped Agnus Dei, just note that it can impede 'active participation'?

After the second invocation, I'm never sure whether to sing 'have mercy on us' or 'grant us peace', so I just shut up. This fall, I had occasion to attend Mass several times at a parish where they do this.

This place seemed to use four invocations instead of the traditional three. David - We vary quite a bit at the church where I cantor. The Agnus Dei is a litany intended to cover the entire Fractioning action. The time that takes depends on which priest and assistant is performing that task. The church still distributes both the Body and the Blood and we average persons at Mass, so this is nontrivial.

To cover the time we would range from 3 to 6 verses. I think the congregation gradually caught on to the hand signals between cantor and organist whereby a closed fist indicated it was the Pacem verse. Recently they did move the distribution of wine to take place during the Presentation of the Gifts. As a result we now sing a standardized three verses with brief organ interlude between each. But in both cases we have avoided the variety of phrases asterisked into the Mass books.

NoStCecilia December Posts: 1. I have no formal musical training, except that I know sacred music when I hear it, and I just, to my horror and rage, read the usccb document you all have referenced.

I need not comment further than you good people already have, except to say, that piece of trash is so inclusive and non-conclusive as to justify anything from chant to improv. I'll likely not contribute to this forum again, but rather, jus sit back and revel in your analysis and knowledge.

Priorstf, I'm glad that your parish is finally coming into line with the documents regarding the pouring of the wine prior to consecration. That's what we do in our parish where we average per Mass , and it works well. We're able to use the standard three repetitions of the Agnus Dei, and avoid the need for signals from anyone. One of the problems I've encountered in the past, as a music director, was cantors who would make up tropes for the Agnus Dei, often of dubious theological or liturgical origin.

I must admit I found the description of hand signals between cantor and organist humorous. I couldn't help envisioning the signals that go back and forth between pitcher and catcher at a baseball game. It takes away any need for guesswork or counting - when they use the right text again, it's "grant us your peace.

Regarding the scholarly controversy about gregorian rhythm to which Jeffrey alludes, I found a useful background article: 'The New Chantbooks from Solesmes' by Peter Jeffrey. Well, folks, the National Pastoral Musicians, always a day late, dollar short and on the wrong side of the issues that matter, finally released on Dec. The document had originally been proposed as a legislative document, but the bishops opted instead to issue it as an official statement of the USCCB, which still required a two-thirds vote of Latin rite bishops.

Sing to the Lord is longer more than paragraphs and more comprehensive than its predecessors. These official norms for approval of texts for singing at the liturgy were adopted by the U. Interesting, too, that we keep hearing about this "Directory for Music and the Liturgy", sent to Rome over a year ago now, and yet nobody that I know has a clue as to what's in it.

If there's an unofficial version floating around that was leaked as typically happens with other documents , I'd sure love to lay my hands on it.

Somehow, this all makes me too nervous. We can only hope that the Curia has looked at that document and decided to send it back DOA. Chironomo December Posts: Anyhow, my biggest problem with it is that it draws heavily from the Directory for Music in the Liturgy, at times quoting this yet unknown document as though it were already approved. My feeling is that the Directory will not be approved, at least not without serious revision, as it follows much of the same thinking as the draft of Sing to the Lord, which was a progressive disaster prior to a complete overhaul on the floor of the synod.

If the Directory is NOT approved, then I'm not sure how another document can use it as a source and still be credible. Wouldn't it seem that documents cited as sources should be valid themselves Wouldn't it have been a better idea to perhaps say "unless there are grave reasons in a particular situation which would make the use of chant detrimental to the celebration of the liturgy, Chant should be given pride of place in the liturgy" The problem with "other things being equal" as can be discerned from the above discussion, is that there is no real agreement on what that term actually means.

By using it, it leaves the entire passage up to a variety of interpretations, which as we all know was the reason for using it in the first place! I'm certainly sensing dissatisfaction among those who consider themselves to be in the "progressive" camp not a good name at all, considering that it describes a regressive agenda. I was struck reading the archives of Pastoral Musician just how central Music in Catholic Worship was to these people.

Now it is gone except not entirely, since it is still posted. Add a Comment. Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum! Sign In Register for Membership. Itunes - music - sing praise to the lord! We are unable to find iTunes on your computer. To preview and buy music from. Sing to the lord of harvest - hymnary. Sing to the lord [music download]: maranatha! We apologize for any inconvenience.

Vatican, us bishops mandate changes to 'lamb of settings of the Lamb of God," the newsletter states. Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship," has now been changed the bishops' conference,. Catholic Church. Music in Catholic Liturgy: A Pastoral and. Sing to the lord [book softcover] ocp. Hillsong " sing to the lord" sheet music - Print and download Sing to the Lord sheet music by Hillsong. Usccb committee on divine worship - united states United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has the responsibility for all matters relating to the Liturgy.

The Secretariat of Divine Worship pastoral. Genuflecting a no-no? Edited by Ken Bible. For Choral. Lillenas Publications. Pocket Edition. Lillenas Publishing Company MB Come, sing to the lord - church of jesus christ of This page contains an interactive player for hymns and children's songs. Liturgical resources - office of worship Liturgical Resources. Music in Divine Worship is the document by the Bishops of.

Sing to the lord: music in divine worship by Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship the role and ministry of music in the liturgy. Sing to the lord : music in divine worship Sing to the Lord : music in divine worship.. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Sing to the lord: music in divine worship - Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship recalls the vast, rich musical tradition in the life of the Church as it provides basic guidelines for understanding the.

Sing to the lord: music in divine worship This document from the USCCB uses the foundational work of the Council fathers to remind the Church of its call to full, active, and conscious participation in the.