Archbishop Paul J. Hallinan says the much-awarded “Instruction on Music in the Liturgy” issued by the Holy Sees Congregation on Rites, is up-to-date, dealing with the kinds of modern music and instruments that are frequently being heard today.

“It verified, by the name of Pope Paul himself, the mind of the Council Fathers in the chapter on Sacred Music in the liturgical constitution,” Archbishop Hallinan, chairman of the U.S. Bishops Committee on the Liturgy said, “although there still remain many unanswered questions, most of these are of particular and practical concern.”

Since this is the Church speaking, it is important that all Catholics, musicians and liturgists, priests and people recognize these main points:

(A) RELATION TO THE PAST: “Musicians will enter this new work with the desire to continue that tradition which has furnished a truly abundant heritage. Let them examine the works of the past…but let them also pay careful attention to the new laws and requirements of the liturgy so that “new forms may in some way grow organically from forms that already exist (41) and the new work will form a new part in the musical heritage, not unworthy of its past.”

COMMENT: Dismissed now are the contentions that good church music existed only in the past, and all we could do was imitate it. Dismissed now are the wild warriors who did not know what contemporary music is and conclude that anything goes “as long as they like it.” (Edelweis from “Sound of Music” for example.)

(B) INSTRUMENTS TO BE USED: “The use of other instruments may also be admitted, (with approval of the national body of bishops) provided that the instruments are suitable for sacred use, or can be adapted to it, that they are in keeping with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.”

COMMENT: ”Don’t throw away your guitars, boys—the strings may rise again.” In fact, the Pope with due precautions as the music’s purpose, has refused to divide absolutely instruments into “sacred” (pipe organ) and “secular” (trumpets, stings, percussion). “ The test would seem to be in the theme, the intention and the qualifications of the players. We have all heard organists whose labored renditions of the “Kyrie” were more secular than sacred. The word “profane” or worse could describe much of their performance. The Instruction adds, “only those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited.” Any instrument suited only to a worldly purpose is obviously out of place to a Christian whose status should be, but not of, the world.

(C) KINDS OF MUSIC: “No kind of sacred music is prohibited as long as it corresponds to the spirit of the liturgical celebration and “does not hinder the active participation of the people.”

COMMENT: Remember the old white-lists and black-lists of hymns, etc? Instead of asking whether any form of music (traditional, contemporary, experimental), “corresponds to the spirit” of the Mass or sacrament, the listener listed his own taste. The new Instruction does not go to this absurd extreme nor its opposite—“If they like it, give it to them!” Instead, the questions asked today are: Does this particular composition put us in God’s presence in a special, praiseful way? Is it in keeping with the spirit of the Mass? Is our emotional response authentically God-oriented? Does it speak of the needs of our time?

(D) CHOIRS AND PEOPLE: “The formation of the whole people in singing should be seriously and patiently undertaken together with liturgical instruction…there should be choirs, especially in cathedrals and other major churches…in smaller churches, too. However, the people should always associate themselves with the singing by performing at least the easier sections of themes which belong to them.”

COMMENT: This is very strong, but completely in keeping with Vatican II. The people are to sing. Why else are the words “Our Father”…the entrance hymn, “Lord have mercy”, “I believe in one God”…phrased as they are?

There is much in the new instruction for every Catholic—even the active resistance. Here the resisters will find favorable mention of silence, choirs, Latin and Gregorian chant. But the instruction has thrown a new light. Silence (17) is not that of a “dumb spectator,” but at times, the intimate association in the mystery. Choirs (19-311) are given great place, as they should be, but they should supplement, not overwhelm the people’s voices. Latin (47) or the vernacular tongue is to be used in terms of “which matches best the capabilities of each congregation.” To the resistance, we address this question: “Our in Latina, quam pauci intelligunt, potius quam in vernacular, quam omnes comprehendunt.” The ancient Gregorian chant, so beautiful in its setting and yet difficult in which to pray is also mentioned. But not in any “primacy of honor” merely first in a list of four kinds of sacred music. Included also is “sacred popular music, be it liturgical or simply religious.”

It is the hope of those bishops and liturgists chosen to represent the American bishops that the new instruction will serve to bring God’s people together, by its flexibility and variety, new insights and ancient traditions. It is our hope that it not become a crusade of the liberals against the conservatives. There is room in God’s liturgical celebrations for many mansions, and there may be rooms for pipe organs; others for guitars. None of them will have piped –in muzak.

The resistance should read Rome with an open mind and heart, and stop writing letters to people they identify as “Communists,” “Protestantizers,” and frequently “intergrationists.” The rebels should read Rome with humility and loyalty, and stop excommunicating everyone who disagrees with them.

The new Instruction is not just a landmark in sacred music. It might well be our last great hope for peace in the cold liturgical war now being waged.