Can every instrument be made suitable for use in the Mass?

[bengal_fan]

But were they used in the Jewish worship service? That’s a question I’ve never gotten a good answer to.

And then there’s always the question, what is our final authority in such a matter, some OT verses or the Church? If an OT psalm seems to say one thing about instruments, and the Church clearly says another thing, which will you obey?

scripture always. it is the first authority. the church is subject to scripture. the church cannot go against scripture.

 

[VociMike]

scripture always. it is the first authority. the church is subject to scripture. the church cannot go against scripture.

Since the subject was music in Catholic liturgy, it was really directed at Catholics. Should a Catholic accept their personal interpretation of an OT verse over a clear teaching of the Catholic Church (assuming a case where there is such a clear teaching, of course)?

 

[bengal_fan]

Since the subject was music in Catholic liturgy, it was really directed at Catholics. Should a Catholic accept their personal interpretation of an OT verse over a clear teaching of the Catholic Church (assuming a case where there is such a clear teaching, of course)?

the problem with your argument is that this whole subject is based on a discipline of the church not a doctrine. it is not a doctrine that “rock music” can’t be used in the liturgy. plus, it’s not even that clear of a teaching. it says the organ is preferred and that the music should be reverent. (basically). so, an obvious reading of the scripture says that different times have different instruments that are considered reverent (history would show us this as well, even within the church).

and yes, scripture will always trump a teaching of the church. that is why the church says that they have never taught anything contrary to scripture. i am not suggesting that the church is teaching error at all, but if she ever did, it would show she is not the true church (i am not saying that either). but any catholic apologist would say (well, any thinking apologist which i would say encompasses most at CA ) that the church never has and never will contradict scripture. so, therefore, the church is subject to scripture and not the other way around… hence prima scriptura.

 

[VociMike]

the problem with your argument is that this whole subject is based on a discipline of the church not a doctrine. it is not a doctrine that “rock music” can’t be used in the liturgy. plus, it’s not even that clear of a teaching. it says the organ is preferred and that the music should be reverent. (basically). so, an obvious reading of the scripture says that different times have different instruments that are considered reverent (history would show us this as well, even within the church).

That’s not a problem with my argument, since I never argued that “no rock music” was a doctrine. I haven’t even argued that “no rock music” is, today, a teaching of the Church at any level (the inexcusable ambiguity of the current documents does not make that a clear conclusion at all). You’re getting sidetracked by what you think I said, not what I actually said.

 

[bengal_fan]

That’s not a problem with my argument, since I never argued that “no rock music” was a doctrine. I haven’t even argued that “no rock music” is, today, a teaching of the Church at any level (the inexcusable ambiguity of the current documents does not make that a clear conclusion at all). You’re getting sidetracked by what you think I said, not what I actually said.

sorry then, but it has been said on this thread. i didn’t mean to attribute to you something you didn’t say, but it has been said on this thread and other threads that guitars and drums don’t belong in the mass.

 

[CarrieH]

What about the alphorn?

Yeah, we don’t want little Johnny honking that big boy indoors, esp. at Mass. The length, volume of sound, and limited chromaticism would make it impractical for church use, anyway. Why not just coil it up, add a few valves, and make it a French horn instead?

If you’re an alphorn fan, check this out: [e(name removed by moderator)rosit.us/Alphorngruppe.htm](http://www.e(name removed by moderator)rosit.us/Alphorngruppe.htm) and also the photo gallery on this site. I play clarinet with this band, and it’s a hoot!

 

[benedictgal]

didn’t David play the lyre (a stringed instrument)? don’t the psalms tell us to praise him with the cymbals and drums? i agree that the songs shouldn’t be “performed” (but we do only put the good organ players and singers up front to lead so there is always a sense of performance no matter what form of music is used) but to say that music with guitars and drums is rooted in protestantism is wrong. it’s rooted in judaism (huh, didn’t we grow out of that? huh, shouldn’t we use guitars, harps, and drums then? huh.)

While some aspects of our liturgy are rooted in Ancient Israel’s Temple Worship, we do not incorporate all of its elements. For example, we do not offer bullocks, sheep and goats, as indicated in the book of Psalms that you repeatedly reference. Furthermore, Ancient Israel required that the first-born son be offered up (and ransomed by an animal sacrifice) to the Lord. In addition, there were other rituals of purification for women (childbirth and menstruation), which the Church, in her wisdom, doesn’t promulgate. The same can hold true for instrumentation.

In his book, “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, then-Cardinal Ratzinger notes that the Church appropriated the psalms of Ancient Israel as her own and sang them. He notes that the Church did not employ musical instruments when singing them. This development came later on, during the 5th or 6th century.

Just because something is included the Old Testament, doesn’t necessarily mean that the Church is bound to do it. After all, the sacrament of the Eucharist, instituted by Jesus, Himself, as a foreshadowing of his sacrifice on Calvary supersedes the Old Covenant. Just look at the words to many of the Eucharistic hymns written by St. Thomas Aquainas.

As an aside, “Judaism”, from what I understand, didn’t really begin until after the destruction of the second Temple. Synagogue worship began during the Babylonian exile because there was no temple at which to offer sacrifice. The Church sees herself as the continuation of Ancient Israel, while still recognizing her Jewish cousins.

 

[bengal_fan]

While some aspects of our liturgy are rooted in Ancient Israel’s Temple Worship, we do not incorporate all of its elements. For example, we do not offer bullocks, sheep and goats, as indicated in the book of Psalms that you repeatedly reference.

i actually only referenced it once. and you do offer up sacrifice (albeit it’s the one for all sacrifice, but it is still offered up in place of the imperfect sacrifice of animals). i never suggested incorporating all of the elements of temple worship, i suggested that different instruments are able to be used for worship and historically i am correct. not only from the psalms but from Christian history as well.

Furthermore, Ancient Israel required that the first-born son be offered up (and ransomed by an animal sacrifice) to the Lord. In addition, there were other rituals of purification for women (childbirth and menstruation), which the Church, in her wisdom, doesn’t promulgate. The same can hold true for instrumentation.

and Jesus was offered up. now we consecrate all our children to the Lord through baptism (as well as cleansing original sin). again, where did i suggest doing every little ritual in the old testament. read posts, think about posts, and then respond please.

In his book, “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, then-Cardinal Ratzinger notes that the Church appropriated the psalms of Ancient Israel as her own and sang them. He notes that the Church did not employ musical instruments when singing them. This development came later on, during the 5th or 6th century…

and what insturments were used? anything they could. stringed instruments, percussion instruments, anything that would make a joyful and reverent noise.

Just because something is included the Old Testament, doesn’t necessarily mean that the Church is bound to do it. After all, the sacrament of the Eucharist, instituted by Jesus, Himself, as a foreshadowing of his sacrifice on Calvary supersedes the Old Covenant. Just look at the words to many of the Eucharistic hymns written by St. Thomas Aquainas.

actually, the church is bound by all scripture. the church has the authority to interpret scripture and to say what things have been made “clean” through the perfect sacrifice of Christ, but Jesus Himself says that not one letter of the law will pass away. we are bound by scripture, the church cannot go against (and has not gone against) scripture.

As an aside, “Judaism”, from what I understand, didn’t really begin until after the destruction of the second Temple. Synagogue worship began during the Babylonian exile because there was no temple at which to offer sacrifice. The Church sees herself as the continuation of Ancient Israel, while still recognizing her Jewish cousins.

you would be wrong in your understanding. Judaism as a practiced religion began with Moses and the law and the worship guidelines given to him. you are right that synagogue worship came about because of lack of access to the temple (whether people couldn’t get there or there was no temple) but that is not the start of Judaism.

 

[THurifer2]

Can every instrument be suitable?

Why yes as long as it can be pounded with a hammer into an Organ.

 

[benedictgal]

Ben-gal:

First of all, I am not disputing your notion that the Church is bound by scripture. However, the Church, through the authority given to Peter by Jesus, interprets Sacred Scripture. We are also not sola scriptura, as we are also bound by Sacred Tradition, as has been handed down to us by the Apostles.

I am still unable to adequately operate the quote buttons used for replying to threads, so please bear with me. Because of Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary, we are not bound to follow the norms established under the old covenant. The old covenant prefigured what Jesus was going to accomplish on the Cross. The rituals of ancient Israel called for holocausts and the offerings of the first born in anticipation of what the Father would do in the person of His Son.

Judaism didn’t exist formally until after the Babylonian exile. Judaism comes from “Judah”, who, along with a remnant of Benjamin, was all that was left of the 12 tribes. Prior to the Babylonian Exile, Ancient Israel was alrso referred to as the Hebrews.

Your interpretation of it being “okay” to use drums simply because the reference is found in the Psalms doesn’t hold water because, as I’ve noted in my previous post, sacrifices of bullocks and other aminals are also noted, but we are not bound by them.

You say that Scripture “trumps” Church teaching (again, because I’m having trouble with the quote button, forgive me if I misread you). However, as I noted in the beginning, it was to Peter and his successors that Christ gave the authority to interpret sacred scripture, which did not formally come into its present form until the reign of Constantinope. I could go on, but this would then not be germaine to the original purpose of this thread.

 

[bengal_fan]

the word “Judaism” maybe didn’t come into existence, but the hebrew religion began with Moses. what we (as Christians) come from came from Moses. i am not sola scriptura, i am prima scriptura. scripture first. everything else is bound by scripture which is the apostle’s teaching. the requirement to be in the NT canon was a legitimate connection to an apostle. i know that catholics are bound by sacred Tradition, and that Tradition is bound by scripture. i am not saying it is required to use strings and percussion in mass, i am saying that scripturally and historically it is permissible. the church has no doctrine against it. there is in place a discipline against using instruments that don’t “meet the requirements of being reverent” but those instruments are not really defined. my original post was dealing with people offering their opinions on what those instruments might be. i happen to find the guitar beautiful and extremely reverent. that’s my opinion though.

this is not to insult you at all, but i’m pretty sure i could run circles around you in a historical, scriptural, and theological argument so i will kindly bow out of this thread as i’ve said what i need to and don’t want to hijack it. i have a deep respect for the catholic church and know what it teaches better than most catholics. i don’t agree with everything (but you might be surprised by what i do agree with the church on as a protestant) and those are my issues to deal with and i am dealing with those. the only Christian denomination that even attempts to say we are still “bound” by the entirety of the OT are th seventh day adventists. so don’t presume that i have even hinted at that. i merely showed that in numerous places (other than psalms) it shows that all kinds of intruments can be used to praise God and that all kinds of instruments can be made suitable despite others’ opinions.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

I would say it depends on how the instrument is played. Even the organ is unsuitable, if played the way it is in the average baseball stadium.

As for limiting instrumentation to what is common in “European culture” (whatever that is), that won’t work well here. My city is a national refugee relocation center, and over 70 languages are spoken here – nothing is entirely “European”.

I must admit, I’ve had a great laugh trying to picture a music ministry made up of the following:

The kazoo, the jew’s harp (or juice harp), the spoons, and the banjo. I’ve never heard these even in the most lively Protestant worship services.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

In the absence of a very clear and specific directive from the Church, this is going to be like the Supreme Court discussing what constitutes pornography and how to determine if something is pornographic and Justice Potter Stewart stating “I know it when I see it.”

I don’t see how drums can be appropriate at Mass, yet I’m a white middle-aged conservative Catholic male. I feel the same way about electric guitars and tamborines. Acoustic guitars? Are they being strummed a la “Michael Row Your Boat Ashore?” I tend to think not. My godson’s older brother, my honorary nephew, is training to be a classical guitarist. I’d love to hear him play some appropriate classical piece at Mass, like “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” or “O Sacred Head,” etc. But he does play for the last Mass at our parish and what do they play? “Stuff” by Oregon Catholic Press (and I said “stuff” to be polite).