Online Edition Vol. VII, No. 5-6 – July-August 2001
Can the Church recover her musical heritage?
Download: PDF version of all 5 parts
by Susan Benofy
Summary: This is the fourth part of Buried Treasure, a series of essays by Susan Benofy on the development of Catholic liturgical music before and after the Second Vatican Council.
Part III introduced the 1967 document, The Place of Music in Eucharistic Celebrations (PMEC), composed by a Music Advisory Board appointed by the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy (BCL). PMEC was issued by the BCL, but never voted on by the full body of bishops.
In contradistinction to the conciliar and papal documents (such as Musicam Sacram), PMEC introduced a detailed "threefold judgment" process for the selection of music for Liturgy.
Part IV continues the account of this little-known document on music, and its marked influence on the entire post-conciliar liturgical reform in the United States.
Sacred Music in the Twentieth Century Reform of the Liturgy
The Nature of Catholic Music for Mass – Functional vs. Sacred
"Ritual" vs. "Sacred" Music
Sacred Music "Deforms" Liturgy
Law of Functionalism
Functionalism in Postconciliar Practice
Acoustics and the "Cultural Ear"
"Functional" Environment and Art
From Broadway to the Sanctuary
The Roman Rite: "It is gone"
The Place of Music in Eucharistic Celebrations (PMEC), a 1967 statement of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, advocated the evaluation of music considered for liturgical use by three sets of criteria: musical, liturgical and pastoral.
This so-called "threefold judgment" was "one of the statement’s major contributions", according to Monsignor Frederick McManus, then director of the Liturgy Secretariat — the staff of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy (BCL) 1 .
Although Monsignor McManus implies this was an idea original to the writers of PMEC, a very similar set of criteria was given by Jesuit Father Joseph Gelineau in his 1962 book, Voices and Instruments in Christian Worship:
When it is known what conditions each sung item has to fulfill within Christian worship then — but only then — it becomes possible to judge whether any particular musical work is or is not fitted for use in divine service. The criteria which derive from the functional role of singing in the liturgical action, and which must be applied to particular works or general categories of music, may be reduced to four.
1) The canonical criterion, according to which a melody is obligatory, recommended, permitted, tolerated, or excluded.
2) The ritual criterion, according to which a melody must conform to the person or persons appointed to sing it, to the literary text and its specific form, and to the musical genre which results from this.
3) The pastoral criterion, according to which a melody must correspond to the living musical idiom and religious sentiment of the community which is at worship.
4) The esthetic criterion, according to which its musical performance is judged to be beautiful, artistic and a worthy sign of the sacred. 2
Note that Father Gelineau specifies that these criteria derive from the "functional role of singing". The "canonical" judgment refers mainly to the fact that certain melodies were officially assigned to Latin texts that were to be sung in the High Mass — i.e. parts of the Mass, such as the Preface and the Lord’s Prayer were to be sung in Latin to specific melodies given in the Missal.
The 1967 Vatican document Musicam Sacram had specified that for vernacular texts "new melodies to be used by the priests and ministers must be approved by the competent territorial authority" (MS 57). This requirement seems to have been almost entirely ignored, however, by PMEC’s writers, as is Father Gelineau ‘s "canonical criterion".
Father Gelineau ‘s "esthetic criterion" becomes the "musical judgment" in PMEC. Unlike PMEC, Gelineau does mention the sacred aspect of the music, although in his view this aspect is in the performance rather than in the text or the music itself. The word "sacred" appears nowhere in PMEC. Both lists assign essentially the same meaning to the term "pastoral".
What PMEC calls the "liturgical" judgment Father Gelineau calls "ritual" judgment, but the definitions are almost identical.
The use of the word "ritual" is worth noting. It is the word preferred today by Universa Laus (UL), the group of liturgical musicians that Gelineau helped to found (see Part II). Others who advocate a functional approach to liturgical music adopt it as well. In fact, a recent study emphasizes the change in terminology as characteristic of the change in the Twentieth Century understanding of music for Catholic worship. This 1997 study, by liturgist and composer Reverend J. Michael Joncas, is called "From Sacred Song to Ritual Music".
"Music in Christian Celebration", the 1980 document of Universa Laus that explained its basic principles, said:
Common expressions such as "sacred music", "religious music", or "church music" have broad and rather nebulous meanings which do not necessarily relate to the liturgy at all. Even the expression "liturgical music" (in the United States "musical liturgy") may not be precise enough to denote the unique relationship between liturgy and music that we are talking about here. Throughout the remainder of this document, therefore, we shall use the expression "(Christian) ritual music".
We understand "ritual music" to mean any vocal or instrumental practice which, in the context of celebration, diverges from the usual forms of the spoken word on the one hand and ordinary sounds on the other. 3
It is hard to imagine a definition more broad and nebulous than this.
The advocates of "ritual music" enthusiastically promote the "threefold judgment" outlined in PMEC, which stresses a liturgical or ritual function, eliminating all reference to the sacred, to the sacred nature of Catholic "ritual". Thus there is no basis for distinguishing sacred from secular music. This is admitted by advocates of "ritual" music.
The largest organization of Catholic church musicians in the US is the National Association of Pastoral Musicians (NPM), founded in 1976. It apparently has no official affiliation with Universa Laus, but it shares UL’s basic approach. Father Virgil Funk, a priest of the diocese of Richmond, founder and president of the NPM, and currently an advisor to the BCL, compared the positions of the organizations Consociatio Musicam Sacram (CIMS) and Universa Laus in his 1998 article, "Secular Music in the Liturgy: Are there any Rules?" 4 :
CIMS uses the term musica sacra, to describe worship music. The opposite of sacred music is secular or profane music…. So, for CIMS, the use of secular music is a fundamental violation of the very definition of what worship music is, namely sacred. 5
Universa Laus, on the other hand, avoided the term sacred (which had been used in all the documents on music of the Holy See, the Second Vatican Council, and the official documents implementing it), coining the new term "Christian ritual music". As Father Funk describes it, the key distinction between "sacred" and "ritual" is that the latter term is limited to the function of the music, without regard for the music’s intrinsic capacity for expressing religious attitudes and beliefs:
While it is not possible to draw all the comparisons between sacred music and Christian ritual music, for our purposes it is essential to notice how the shift in language results in a shift in understanding of the music from the culture. The opposite of ritual music is non-ritual music, music that does not have a ritual function or does not function in a ritual manner or context. Therefore, for UL, secular music is neither excluded or included as liturgical music; all music is judged by whether it functions as ritual music. 6
We have seen that PMEC says that the judgment that Gregorian chant is good music "says nothing about whether and how it is to be used in this celebration". (PMEC III C 3 emphasis added) If we combine this with opinions, such as Father Funk’s, that secular music can serve a ritual function in the liturgy, it is not surprising that the music at Mass in a typical parish is often of a secular style. It is this combination that also leads musicians to declare that traditional Catholic sacred music is actually unsuitable for use in the (reformed) liturgy. This conclusion is not original to PMEC, however.
Consider Father Gelineau ‘s evaluation of the liturgical appropriateness of polyphonic Masses:
Something more than mere material respect for the text and literary forms is required. The singing, in its form, must also fulfill the ritual function for which it is composed. The great polyphonic or symphonic compositions have not always been satisfactory from this point of view. In particular the works classified as "Masses", which treat the five parts of the Ordinary as five movements of a single cyclic composition, raise a question to which we must return later. In style and inspiration a Palestrinian "Mass" is instinct with the sacred character, and this music, as Pius XI said, is "moulded by Christian wisdom"; but its musical forms, inspired by the liturgical and musical fashions of the sixteenth century, correspond rather imperfectly with the authentic ritual functions of the Mass chants. As the great symphonic compositions of later date, such as the Missa solemnis of Beethoven, they are rightly preserved today as achievements of religious music to be sung only apart from the liturgy, because their use at the actual celebration of Mass completely deforms the normal course of the ritual action. 7
This quote, from Father Gelineau ‘s Voices and Instruments in Christian Worship, gives the same extremely negative evaluation of the heritage of sacred music as does PMEC (II B3). Again, it is evident that his evaluation of polyphonic musical settings of the Mass is based on their alleged failure to fulfill a proper "ritual function". Note that while Musicam Sacram (MS) speaks of a song’s "meaning and proper nature", PMEC speaks of its "specific nature and function". (emphasis added)
Father Gelineau states that certain "functional laws" must be observed in judging the appropriateness of musical compositions for the liturgy. These functional laws are not derived from any liturgical documents of the Holy See; in fact, they sometimes lead to recommendations that are directly contrary to official norms. Father Gelineau insists that one must start with the rites themselves and study how they are celebrated:
One must first know what the Church intends as regards each item designed to be sung as part of her ritual, even when her written law specifies no details. 8
But where does one find the Church’s intention if not in her written laws? Father Gelineau finds this in what he contends was the liturgical practice of the earliest Christian centuries. But documentary evidence for the music used in the liturgy during this period is very sparse. Even the melodies used are a matter of conjecture, since an exact musical notation was not developed until about the eleventh century. This does not deter Father Gelineau , however. He repeatedly states that the early Christians sang simple refrains to the verses of Psalms sung by a psalmist (cantor) who improvised elaborate melodies.
Other historians agree that such a method was probably followed for the chanting of the Psalm between the readings and for the Communion chant. However Gelineau implies that this format was characteristic of the Introit and Offertory as well, and that the forms of these chants as they appear in official chant books resulted from a "radical transformation" 9 of earlier forms. The new forms, he insists, were developed by trained singers in choirs whose role "has progressively invaded the rites to the detriment of the people’s part in them". 10
Other historians give a different account of the history of the Introit. Monsignor Higinio Anglés, president of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music in Rome, asserts that
The Introit, as an antiphonic chant in the Mass, was introduced to Rome between 431 and the first half of the VI century. The congregation never took part in it. 11
In a frequently-cited history of Gregorian chant, Professor Peter Wagner concurs. He says that the earliest evidence of the existence of the Introit is in a Liber Pontificalis of Pope Celestine I (5th century) and concludes:
The introduction by Pope Celestine I of antiphonal chanting for the Introit of the Mass presupposes a choir of instructed singers. 12
He does not see this as an "invasion", but as a normal response to a changing situation. He points out that singing in the early centuries, when the Church was persecuted, was probably limited out of necessity.
However, this did not always remain the case: as soon as circumstances allowed, the musical art was admitted into the sanctuary. The century which created the great basilicas also inaugurated an artistic development of the liturgical chant. 13
In fact he sees the development of artistic chant as natural:
Apart from everything else, it would have been very strange if the Church, after her liberation and while enjoying the protection of the secular power, had not outgrown the simpler forms of chant which had only been a necessity as long as she was obliged to be content with a hidden existence. Church music could not stop at this point, when all the other arts prepared to offer the best that they had to the God of the Christians. 14
Gelineau , in his discussion of the Introit, asserts:
By its nature this psalmody is the concern of the whole assembly: verses to be recited by a psalmist and refrain to be sung by all. 15
Yet he asks a number of questions in a footnote: whether the original form of the Introit had a short refrain for the people or a long one for the choir, whether it was sung alternately by two choirs, or even whether the Introit was originally a Psalm. He concludes: "We cannot answer any of these questions with certainty". 16 Gelineau rejects the known form of the Introit as a "radical transformation" of the original form, yet by his own account, its original form is not known. His opinions about the nature of the Introit appear to be based largely on his own preference for the form he himself used in setting the Psalms to music in the 1950s.
The dangers of this kind of reconstruction of history were pointed out by another liturgical scholar, Oratorian Father Louis Bouyer. Father Bouyer, a theologian and a contemporary of Gelineau , had also done historical research in the liturgy, and he believed a reformation of the liturgy must be based on the internal nature of the liturgy. He did not think, however, that this could be achieved by resorting to reconstructing the liturgy of early periods:
For no reconstructions of the past — however excellent the period one chooses to try to bring to life — can be achieved without a large admixture of the products of one’s own fancy; and such reconstructions are likely to raise more problems than they can solve. 17
Indeed, we have more than thirty years’ experience of the problems raised by Gelineau ‘s "reconstruction" of the pristine Roman Rite. The "functional laws" promoted by Gelineau and Universa Laus seem to be the primary influence on the development of the Graduale Simplex and documents such as PMEC. Their application often led to recommendations (frequently interpreted as rules) that not only specify details not contained in the law, but which in many cases contradict specifications that are in the written documents.
Much of the treasury of sacred music was rejected on the grounds that it did not satisfy these functionalist laws.
This functionalist approach often led to the use of music for Mass chosen by a "liturgy planner" in place of the authorized sung texts of the Mass. The songs chosen were frequently secular songs or secular-style works newly composed for folk Masses. Thus, in practice, a musical pattern, contrary to the directives of the Constitution on the Liturgy and Musicam Sacram was established for the "new" liturgy — even before the actual revised rite of Mass was published in 1969.
The replacement of the traditional texts and music was greatly advanced by official diocesan decrees requiring the use of only English in the Mass, and by the general perception that the Council mandated replacing Latin with the vernacular.
This approach to worship music was promoted by agencies of the Bishops’ Conference, many unofficial liturgical groups, and, especially, publishers, who had a financial interest in promoting constantly changing new music. The advocates of functionalism, however, attribute its triumph to other factors.
Father Virgil Funk analyzes the change in the character of music at Mass since the Council in terms of the acoustics of the sort of modern churches often built since (and even before) the Council. These "draw sanctuary and assembly space together". To make spoken words more intelligible, they employ sound systems and "modern acoustical techniques that deaden reverberation with acoustical tile and carpets". This makes it possible for a preacher "to create a sense of intimacy with the assembly" but the assembly’s song is weakened since they cannot hear themselves sing. 18
According to Funk, in the ten or fifteen years after the Council it became clear that in this environment:
the overtones of Gregorian chant and the extended chords of traditional polyphony did not have the desired effect on the assembly’s ears. It is my opinion that the people who chose to build such worship centers did so not because they were trying to exclude musical environments supportive of chant and polyphony, but because they were trying to draw the presider and assembly closer … or reflect a perceived new theology of incarnation. It can be argued, however, that chant and the musical treasury are not in the cultural ear of the typical American assembly as they are in a German assembly. American musicians discovered this musical truth through pastoral practice. 19
Father Funk seems to suggest here that musicians actually tried to introduce chant and polyphony at Mass in the years after the Council, but their efforts failed.
Even if his views about the unsuitable acoustics and the defective "cultural ear" of American Catholics were true, this explanation for the disappearance of chant does not persuade. In fact, the number of parishes that had maintained chant and polyphony for ten years following the Council is minuscule. Any parish that did maintain this music — despite the negative attitude toward Latin and the downgrading of the sung parts of the Mass in such documents as PMEC — would hardly be likely to drop it because of acoustics. Furthermore, traditional music fared no better in the thousands of Gothic or Romanesque-style churches, which presumably had excellent acoustics for singing chant and polyphonic music.
Father Funk’s "historical reconstruction" of postconciliar developments in music is inconsistent with his own observation, a few paragraphs later, that popular secular music was already used in worship during the 1960s. It also suggests that the abandonment of chant was a peculiarly American phenomenon, which it was not.
Even in Germany, where Father Funk contends that Gregorian chant is in the "cultural ear", its replacement by other styles of music was common enough by 1965 to concern Cardinal Joseph Frings of Cologne.
The cardinal, noting the disappearance of Gregorian chant and polyphony in many parishes, issued a decree urging their continued use. He noted that the requirements for sacred music given by Pope Pius X were still mandatory, and added:
Spirituals and similar songs, including popular hit tunes, jazz and the like, … do not fulfill the requirements laid down for liturgical music, and hence are not suitable for use at Holy Mass. 20
The situation was similar in France, where two associations concerned with sacred music published a statement noting that Gregorian chant and polyphony were being abandoned:
Even more, in those places where it would be possible to preserve these treasures, pressure has been brought to bear on those in charge to abandon them, in spite of the fact that many of the faithful, even the more humble, are attached to them. 21
Despite the preference for chant in the French "cultural ear", then, choirs were disbanded and organists dismissed. The statement also says:
It seems that a vandalism, which would never consider the demolition of a cathedral or other religious art treasures, is attacking indiscriminately the masterpieces of sacred music. 22
This last statement points to a connection between the functionalist approach to music and modernist architecture, which goes deeper than acoustics. Ten years after PMEC was issued, a "companion document", Environment and Art in Catholic Worship, would apply the same functionalist approach to sacred art and architecture.
Shortly after PMEC was written, the Music Advisory Board ceased to exist. A new organization was formed in 1969, the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions (FDLC). This group, whose members are officials of diocesan worship offices, is officially recognized by the BCL, and two of its officers are ex officio advisors to the Committee. A music committee of this group revised PMEC. Their revision was issued in 1972 as "Music in Catholic Worship" (MCW). Like PMEC, this is a statement of the BCL only, and was not presented for a vote of the entire conference. As was the case with PMEC, MCW is usually presented as if its provisions were liturgical law, though it is only a committee statement. MCW retains the threefold judgment and PMEC’s assertions that all but a few specified parts of the Mass are "secondary". A new edition of this document, revised mainly for "inclusive" language, was issued in 1983.
The FDLC was also instrumental in the writing of the document on liturgical art and architecture, "Environment and Art in Catholic Worship" (EACW), which shares the functionalist philosophy of its companion music documents. Like the documents on music, it was a statement of the BCL only, not voted on by the entire conference.
Like PMEC, EACW expresses negative views about the art of the past: "Many local Churches must use spaces designed and built in a former period, spaces which may now be unsuitable for the liturgy". (EACW §43)
EACW insists that the church must be designed taking into account the community’s "self-image", but there is no insistence that modern churches correspond to a cultural preference of the community: "A good architect will possess … sufficient integrity not to allow the community’s design taste or preference to limit the freedom necessary for a creative design". (EACW §47)
The documents reveal striking parallels:
PMEC stresses the ritual function of music; and EACW says that appropriate liturgical art "must clearly serve (and not interrupt) ritual action which has its own structure". (EACW §21)
PMEC was used to discourage traditional liturgical music; and EACW was invoked to enforce a modernist, functionalist architecture in new churches, and to require radical renovation of older ones. These renovations often resulted in the very sort of vandalism that the French musicians quoted above thought would never be tolerated.
The functionalist approach is destructive to traditional music and art because it is essentially a secularizing approach. Some considered the use of popular music at Mass to be functional, while traditional chant and polyphony, as well as statues and other art work, were considered unsuitable "distractions". Funk insists, however, that the popular secular music of the 1960s used in worship shortly after the Council was also "unacceptable to the cultural ear of the worshipers". Though specific songs were dropped, the style was not:
As a result of what we learned soon after the Council, a second group of composers began to develop music that was heavily influenced by the secular culture but whose popular musical "codes" were more subtly hidden from the cultural ear by arrangement, harmony, or performance technique. When a composer was able to create music that the assembly did not recognize as blatantly drawn from the secular culture, but was nevertheless music that charmed its cultural ear, the assembly began to sing such music readily and with enthusiasm. …
In the United States, a group of composers has attempted to use musical techniques drawn from the popular culture, e.g., Broadway, but these composers mask the secular codes in such a way that their sources are not recognizable by the listener. 23
A footnote to this passage names Father J. Michael Joncas, Marty Haugen and Christopher Walker as composers who have stated "that they deliberately encode their music with contemporary codes from Broadway show tunes". 24
Ironically, many musicians who produce music "coded" to Broadway shows for use in the Mass also reject chant or sacred polyphony, arguing that it is based on an "entertainment model" of liturgy. In their view only a trained choir can "perform" polyphony and the more elaborate chants, thus excluding a "simple refrain" for the people’s "participation".
Father Funk believes that if secular music functions within the liturgy as ritual music, it ceases to be secular and becomes ritual music:
Likewise, if music such as chant and music from the sacred treasury can function as ritual music, then they are no longer sacred music but ritual music. 25
This last statement turns the idea of sacred music on its head, since its corollary is that the only part of the treasury of sacred music that, in Funk’s terms, can be called sacred is that which is unsuitable for use in the liturgy.
Another characteristic of functionalism is a rigid emphasis on the use of the vernacular, on the grounds of intelligibility. In the opinion of the dominant school of liturgists, even the simplest texts, such as the Kyrie or Agnus Dei had to be sung or said in English. Such an emphasis led to the replacement of most official texts with substitutes.
The resulting change in texts and music led to the perception that there was a great gulf between the "Old Mass" and the new. Not only ordinary worshipers had this impression. Prominent liturgists concurred. Father Gelineau , whose Voices and Instruments in Christian Worship strongly influenced details of the change in liturgical music, wrote in 1978:
Let’s make no mistake: translating does not mean saying the same thing in equivalent words. It changes the form. … If the form changes, the rite changes. If one element changes the total meaning changes. Think back, if you remember it, to the Latin sung High Mass with Gregorian chant. Compare it with the modern Post-Vatican II Mass. It is not only the words, but also the tunes and even certain actions that are different. In fact it is a different liturgy of the Mass. We must say it plainly: the Roman rite as we knew it exists no more. It is gone. 26
Gelineau ‘s 1962 book outlined "functional laws", which, in his view, summarized what the Church intended as music suited to the nature of the Roman Rite.
Father Gelineau apparently wished to recapture a pristine rite unencumbered by what he saw as musical accretions and "art for art’s sake". However, when his own prescriptions were followed after the Council, he perceives in the result not a recapturing, but an abandonment of the Roman Rite. When provisions contrary to those of the Council are put into effect, clearly, the result will be contrary to the Council’s intentions. Instead of organic growth and true renewal, they produce merely a new set of "accretions", obscuring the Roman Rite.
The abandonment of the Roman Rite was by no means the intention of the Council. Recent documents issued by the Holy See make this very clear.
The revised edition of the Institio Generalis Missalis Romani, issued in July 2000, reemphasizes several traditional practices. The recent Fifth Instruction for the Right Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, Liturgiam Authenticam, decrees that "the greatest care is to be taken to maintain the identity and unitary expression of the Roman Rite" and "envisions … a new era of liturgical renewal … which safeguards also the faith and the unity of the whole Church of God". Both contain sections on music.
These documents will influence the development of Catholic music in the "new era".
1 Msgr. Frederick McManus, Thirty Years of Liturgical Renewal (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1987) p. 95.
2 Joseph Gelineau , SJ. Voices and Instruments in Christian Worship: Principles, Laws, Applications translated by Rev. Clifford Howell, SJ. (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1964) p. 192.
3 §§1.3-1.4 of the 1980 Universa Laus Document "Music in Christian Celebration". The original document was written in French and published in the French liturgical journal Maison Dieu 145 (1981) pp. 7-23. An English translation and commentary was published as Claude Duchesneau and Michel Veuthey Music and Liturgy: The Universa Laus Document and Commentary, translated by Paul Inwood (Washington, DC: The Pastoral Press, 1992). Quoted passage on pp. 15-16.
4 Fr. Virgil C. Funk, "Secular Music in the Liturgy: Are There Any Rules?" in Studia Liturgica 28 (1998) pp. 177-93.
5 Funk, Studia Liturgica 28, p. 180.
6 Funk, Studia Liturgica 28, p. 181. (emphasis added)
7 Gelineau , Voices and Instruments, p. 110
8 Gelineau , Voices and Instruments, p. 11.
9 Gelineau , Voices and Instruments, p. 87.
10 Gelineau , Voices and Instruments, p. 88.
11 Monsignor Higinio Anglés, commentary in Musicae Sacrae Ministerium, Vol. IV, p. 35.
12 Peter Wagner, Ph.D., Introduction to the Gregorian Melodies: Part I Origin and development of the forms of the Liturgical Chant up to the end of the Middle Ages. Translated by Agnes Orme and E.G.P. Wyatt (London: The Plainsong and Mediaeval Music Society, 1901) p. 7.
13 Wagner, p. 7.
14 Wagner, p. 26.
15 Gelineau , Voices and Instruments p. 168.
16 Gelineau , Voices and Instruments p. 168, footnote 357.
17 Louis Bouyer, Liturgical Piety (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1955) p. 12.
18 Funk, "Secular Music in the Liturgy: Are There Any Rules?" in Finding Voice to Give God Praise: Essays in the Many Languages of the Liturgy, edited by Kathleen Hughes, RSCJ (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998) p. 46.
19 Funk, in Finding Voice to Give God Praise, p. 47.
20 An English translation of Cardinal Fring’s June 24, 1965 decree appears in Musicae Sacrae Ministerium Special Edition, 1965, pp. 11-12.
21 "Association for Choirs and French Liturgical Organists statement sent to the French hierarchy" in Musicae Sacrae Ministerium Vol. IV, No. 1 (Spring 1967) p. 11.
22 Ibid., p. 10.
23 Funk, in Finding Voice to Give God Praise, p. 48.
24 Ibid., p. 57, note 33.
25 Ibid., p. 50.
26 Joseph Gelineau , The Liturgy Today and Tomorrow, (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), p. 11.