OMETIME AROUND the year 2012, during a job interview, the priest interviewing me exclaimed: “So I can only assume you go to sleep each night with MUSICAM SACRAM under your pillow, right?” I wasn’t quite sure how to answer. This job interview was for a parish which celebrated the 1970 Missal (a.k.a. “Ordinary Form”) … but MUSICAM SACRAM doesn’t apply to the Ordinary Form. That’s because MUSICAM SACRAM was issued on 5 March 1967. What we call the “Ordinary Form” wasn’t released until 1970. In 1967, the CONSILIUM was still working on an “Experimental Mass” rejected by the bishops in October of 1967.
(1 of 2) Experimental Mass • On 24 October 1967, Father Bugnini celebrated this EXPERIMENTAL MASS in the presence of more than 100 bishops and cardinals in the Sistine Chapel. Broadly speaking, their reaction was negative. Even Bugnini himself admitted that “the votes went to some extent contrary to what the CONSILIUM wanted.” The eminent historian, Yves Chiron, characterized the bishops’ response as a “public disavowal.” After witnessing the EXPERIMENTAL MASS, John Cardinal Heenan (Archbishop of Westminster and close personal friend of Pope Paul VI) declared:
“If we were to offer them the kind of
ceremony we saw yesterday in the Sistine
Chapel, we would soon be left with the
congregation of mostly women and children.”
(2 of 2) Experimental Mass • Because of the negative response, the CONSILIUM had to go back to the drawing board. Moreover, Cardinal Lercaro (the one responsible for creating the EXPERIMENTAL MASS) was forced to resign. Some believe he was made a scapegoat by Pope Paul VI and—to be completely honest—it’s undeniable that many others besides Cardinal Lercaro had worked on creating the EXPERIMENTAL MASS.
The 1967 Document • In 1970,1 the Novus Ordo was released—in spite of the fact that not all of its books were complete. The great haste with which it was produced explains why so many errors were included in that first edition. It goes without saying that MUSICAM SACRAM does not apply to a form of the Mass which wouldn’t be invented for another three years. Moreover, in places where MUSICAM SACRAM contradicts SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, church law says musicians must follow the document with higher authority.
What Weight? • Are we free to completely ignore MUSICAM SACRAM? I wouldn’t say that, but it only applies to the 1965 Missal. Similarly, De Musica Sacra (promulgated on 3 September 1958) only applies to the 1962 Missal. In some ways, the fact that MUSICAM SACRAM doesn’t apply to the 1970 Missal means we “dodged a bullet”—because in his book, La Riforma Liturgica, Bugnini admits he twisted this document to undermine (and frequently contradict) the explicit wishes of Vatican II as expressed in SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, which was officially promulgated on 4 December 1963.
Bad Laws • I wish I could tell our readers that all church legislation was perfect and never contradicted itself. Unfortunately, that’s not true. For example, in January of 1968, the United States Conference of Bishops issued a horrifying document called “The Place of Music in Eucharistic Celebrations,” which said the psalms (!) shouldn’t be sung during Mass! (Happily, that hideous document was eventually repealed.) For the record, a document such as MUSICAM SACRAM can never overrule SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, which has a higher authority. In my view, the best course of action is to study the authentic tradition of the Catholic Church. In other words, let us return to the authentic traditions and avoid getting ‘bent out of shape’ looking at contradictory documents and statements. I repeat once again: in places where MUSICAM SACRAM contradicts Vatican II, we must follow the higher authority.
1 The Novus Ordo appeared in some places in (late) 1969, but in most countries it appeared early in 1970. However, the books were only partially complete at that time.
