Guitar Music

[EasterJoy]

…in the realm of Church music, straight up, Gregorian chant is the true ideal standard of sacred music; the closer something resembles Gregorian chant, the more suited it is to the Liturgy; the less something resembles Gregorian chant, the less suited it is to the Liturgy…

No, the Church does not exactly say that. Sacrosanctum Concilium gives pride of place to Gregorian chant and to the organ, but does not go so far as you do.

*116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.* –(30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.)

Gregorian chant is monophonic, has free rhythm, and is sung a capella. That does not mean that a piece of music that is monophonic is automatically more suitable than a piece that is polyphonic, that a piece with free rhythm is automatically more suitable than a piece with a proscribed rhythm, or that a piece written to be sung a capella is automatically more suitable than a piece that has an instrumental accompaniment.

The feature of Gregorian chant that makes it the liturgical ideal is its prayerful quality. That is a little less strictly defined than the other features I listed, but it is the essential quality towards which the other three tend together when prayer is chanted in a liturgically ideal way.

Therefore I’d say that the more a piece sounds prayerful instead of reflecting a secular mood or a mood distracted from God, the more suitable it is for the Mass. The more suitable a piece of music is for a particular congregation to sing the prayers of the Mass together in a whole-hearted way focused on God, the object of our prayer (rather than some other way–distracted, mechanical, half-hearted, and so on), the more it is suitable for the Mass.

There is a way in which you and I do not agree, but there is a way in which we do. Musical decisions for a liturgy ought to be made so that the prayers will lifted in the most prayerful way that is likely to be attained by that congregation on that day, given the situation of those people.

Back to the beginning: a classical guitar might be among the most suitable instruments available for leading a congregation to lift their song in prayer in a way that sounds and is experienced as exceptionally prayerful, depending on who and what is locally available. It depends on what instruments are available and who is playing them. I have heard too many organs played by someone who sounds as if their training was at the ballpark or the old movie theatre, thrilling the crowd on the Mighty Wurlitzer. The sad problem was that this is not their intention. No, they were simply not the masters of their instrument. That is a case where a classical guitar played by someone who has mastered its use in a sacred setting would be far better than an organ.

 

[bobballen_18]

No, the Church does not exactly say that. Sacrosanctum Concilium gives pride of place to Gregorian chant and to the organ, but does not go so far as you do.

*116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.* –(30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.)

Gregorian chant is monophonic, has free rhythm, and is sung a capella. That does not mean that a piece of music that is monophonic is automatically more suitable than a piece that is polyphonic, that a piece with free rhythm is automatically more suitable than a piece with a proscribed rhythm, or that a piece written to be sung a capella is automatically more suitable than a piece that has an instrumental accompaniment.

The feature of Gregorian chant that makes it the liturgical ideal is its prayerful quality. That is a little less strictly defined than the other features I listed, but it is the essential quality towards which the other three tend together when prayer is chanted in a liturgically ideal way.

Therefore I’d say that the more a piece sounds prayerful instead of reflecting a secular mood or a mood distracted from God, the more suitable it is for the Mass. The more suitable a piece of music is for a particular congregation to sing the prayers of the Mass together in a whole-hearted way focused on God, the object of our prayer (rather than some other way–distracted, mechanical, half-hearted, and so on), the more it is suitable for the Mass.

There is a way in which you and I do not agree, but there is a way in which we do. Musical decisions for a liturgy ought to be made so that the prayers will lifted in the most prayerful way that is likely to be attained by that congregation on that day, given the situation of those people.

Back to the beginning: a classical guitar might be among the most suitable instruments available for leading a congregation to lift their song in prayer in a way that sounds and is experienced as exceptionally prayerful, depending on who and what is locally available. It depends on what instruments are available and who is playing them. I have heard too many organs played by someone who sounds as if their training was at the ballpark or the old movie theatre, thrilling the crowd on the Mighty Wurlitzer. The sad problem was that this is not their intention. No, they were simply not the masters of their instrument. That is a case where a classical guitar played by someone who has mastered its use in a sacred setting would be far better than an organ.

Pope Pius X, from Tra le Sollecitudini, 1903:

1. These qualities are to be found, in the highest degree, in Gregorian Chant, which is, consequently the Chant proper to the Roman Church, the only chant she has inherited from the ancient fathers, which she has jealously guarded for centuries in her liturgical codices, which she directly proposes to the faithful as her own, which she prescribes exclusively for some parts of the liturgy, and which the most recent studies have so happily restored to their integrity and purity.

On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down the following rule: **the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.

The ancient traditional Gregorian Chant must, therefore, in a large measure be restored to the functions of public worship, and the fact must be accepted by all that an ecclesiastical function loses none of its solemnity when accompanied by this music alone.**

Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times.

(emphasis mine)
I see no reason for this to be ignored. Obviously other things are allowed - in the same document, Pius X mentioned polyphony as second in the “hierarchy” under Gregorian chant; all other suitable music he lists as below Gregorian chant and polyphony.

My only point is this, as I mentioned above - sure, we can find in that document and in following documents after 1903 that other things (polyphony, modern compositions in the proper style, etc) are allowed, because the ideal is simply not possible (though it is more possible than people tend to think it is) in every parish setting. Otherwise, again, I see nothing that has gotten rid of this understanding of sacred music in the Church since 1903, and therefore, I see no reason to not at least be attempting to work towards the ideal.

You have a point that the Liturgical music should be specific to a particular day and a particular parish - but again, I am only suggesting that one should always be moving towards the ideal, as much as possible, with whatever Liturgical music choices one makes.

 

[bobballen_18]

Just to clarify, EasterJoy - yes, I think we mostly agree - I agree that, since other things are allowed besides Gregorian chant and organ, there are certainly cases in which other things are more suitable for the liturgy than Gregorian chant and organ. It’s kind of hard for me to explain, and this is something I haven’t quite been able to fully resolve within myself either - but I believe the only time something is “more proper” for the Liturgy than Gregorian chant, organ, and polyphony is when those simply aren’t possible - i.e., as you hinted, when these are not able to be performed with at least a little bit of ease and beauty. And of course this is largely the situation today, since for whatever reason people decided since other things are allowed we should just totally quit singing Gregorian chant and polyphony and using the organ; as a result, people are not nearly as educated in singing Gregorian chant and polyphony and playing the organ.

This is one of my great hopes for the future - that when/if Catholic schools make a comeback (they have been more or less dying off for the past few decades), music should be an emphasis - not simply any old music class - Sacred music classes. All Catholics deserve to be exposed to Gregorian chant and polyphony at the Mass, yet it is rarely experienced today. I admit that polyphony especially can be quite difficult, but the rewards are so, so great, and I so much desire that more people could become exposed to authentic Sacred music as the Church desires, and upholds as the “supreme model”!!

 

[EasterJoy]

Just to clarify, EasterJoy - yes, I think we mostly agree - I agree that, since other things are allowed besides Gregorian chant and organ, there are certainly cases in which other things are more suitable for the liturgy than Gregorian chant and organ. It’s kind of hard for me to explain, and this is something I haven’t quite been able to fully resolve within myself either - but I believe the only time something is “more proper” for the Liturgy than Gregorian chant, organ, and polyphony is when those simply aren’t possible - i.e., as you hinted, when these are not able to be performed with at least a little bit of ease and beauty. And of course this is largely the situation today, since for whatever reason people decided since other things are allowed we should just totally quit singing Gregorian chant and polyphony and using the organ; as a result, people are not nearly as educated in singing Gregorian chant and polyphony and playing the organ.

This is one of my great hopes for the future - that when/if Catholic schools make a comeback (they have been more or less dying off for the past few decades), music should be an emphasis - not simply any old music class - Sacred music classes. All Catholics deserve to be exposed to Gregorian chant and polyphony at the Mass, yet it is rarely experienced today. I admit that polyphony especially can be quite difficult, but the rewards are so, so great, and I so much desire that more people could become exposed to authentic Sacred music as the Church desires, and upholds as the “supreme model”!!

Most often, I would not say that Gregorian chant and organ are unsuitable, but that a suitable level of excellence in Gregorian chant and organ are not–at present!–consistently attainable. In other words, most of the time the congregation isn’t singing it, won’t sing it, can’t sing it, what have you. The musical professionals in the parish aren’t, won’t, can’t, or aren’t going to teach them. That is not to say that any church or oratory that can do Gregorian chant well should never do anything else, but rather that every congregation ought to strive to attain a level of competence so that chant can be used often and can achieve the level of prayerfulness for which it gained its stature among all other forms of sacred music in the first place. Much of the time, those who understand the treasure that is Gregorian chant do not have the opportunity to get the congregation to accept it and to pray with it. The form of prayer is important, of course it is, but never as important as that people do actually use it to pray.

As for the organ, there are churches with acoustics and finances that cannot attain organ music that realizes the level of excellence which is the reason that organ music has the stature that it has. For instance, an electronic keyboard that imitates a real pipe organ is not a pipe organ. That is not the instrument that won pride of place in Western music. It is an instrument that is just as ubiquitous in pop music as electric guitars and drum sets. It would be hard to argue that an electronic “organ” deserves pride of place in a church in the Roman Rite, while a guitar played by a classically-trained professional who plays sacred music written by Bach does not.

That is the way I would think about this: that is, to always remember we are not considering a form of music so much as we are considering a form of prayer. When choosing the form, choose with those who will be praying it in mind. No one can make bad music into good music any more than they can make prayer with bad literary structure into good prayer in the ultimate sense, but as long as the prayer is actually sacred and the music is actually prayerful, it is best to choose the form that is most likely to actually raise both hearts and voices in prayer.

 

[bobballen_18]

Most often, I would not say that Gregorian chant and organ are unsuitable, but that a suitable level of excellence in Gregorian chant and organ are not–at present!–consistently attainable. In other words, most of the time the congregation isn’t singing it, won’t sing it, can’t sing it, what have you. The musical professionals in the parish aren’t, won’t, can’t, or aren’t going to teach them. That is not to say that any church or oratory that can do Gregorian chant well should never do anything else, but rather that every congregation ought to strive to attain a level of competence so that chant can be used often and can achieve the level of prayerfulness for which it gained its stature among all other forms of sacred music in the first place. Much of the time, those who understand the treasure that is Gregorian chant do not have the opportunity to get the congregation to accept it and to pray with it. The form of prayer is important, of course it is, but never as important as that people do actually use it to pray.

As for the organ, there are churches with acoustics and finances that cannot attain organ music that realizes the level of excellence which is the reason that organ music has the stature that it has. For instance, an electronic keyboard that imitates a real pipe organ is not a pipe organ. That is not the instrument that won pride of place in Western music. It is an instrument that is just as ubiquitous in pop music as electric guitars and drum sets. It would be hard to argue that an electronic “organ” deserves pride of place in a church in the Roman Rite, while a guitar played by a classically-trained professional who plays sacred music written by Bach does not.

That is the way I would think about this: that is, to always remember we are not considering a form of music so much as we are considering a form of prayer. When choosing the form, choose with those who will be praying it in mind. No one can make bad music into good music any more than they can make prayer with bad literary structure into good prayer in the ultimate sense, but as long as the prayer is actually sacred and the music is actually prayerful, it is best to choose the form that is most likely to actually raise both hearts and voices in prayer.

Again, I think you and I agree like, 99% on this - what you wrote above I generally agree with; i.e., people refuse to sing it these days despite it being desired by the Church. But here’s the thing - we can’t just keep on going and ignoring in perpetuity what the Church prefers. At some point we have to introduce it, however slowly - I’m not advocating changing every single Mass to Gregorian chant and organ exclusively and immediately! - by competent and knowledgeable individuals. At some point, the Church as a whole needs to put more emphasis on restoring the widespread use of Gregorian chant (and organ), so that there will be more competent and knowledgeable individuals. So again, all I’m saying is that, yes, other things are allowed, but there’s no reason to not move forward with a goal in mind, a goal which is more perfectly thinking with the mind of the Church. I guess in a certain sense I’m only speaking for myself here, since I personally am quite knowledgeable about it, so I consider it my duty to be doing this (I am an organist and choir director). I don’t exactly blame everyone for not knowing, since it hasn’t exactly been “in fashion” for quite some time now, but I am just “spreading the word”, so to speak. This is why I said to the OP that, sure, go for it with your Classical guitar, and I believe it is possible that people could be drawn in closer union with our Lord through its beauty, but then I followed that with an encouragement to look into Gregorian chant. It was only a suggestion (though a highly recommended one on my part…haha).

 

[Sy_Noe]

Psalm 150 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

Praise ye the Lord in his holy places: praise ye him in the firmament of his power.

Praise ye him for his mighty acts: praise ye him according to the multitude of his greatness.

Praise him with sound of trumpet: praise him with psaltery and harp.

Praise him with timbrel and choir: praise him with strings and organs. Praise him on high sounding cymbals: praise him on cymbals of joy: let every spirit praise the Lord. Alleluia.

 

[HelenRose]

Hello. I’m a very recent convert; I join my parish in September. I’m attending RCIA classes now. I’m a classical gutiarist; teach guitar locally. I’ve seen several threads here pertaining to guitar music at Mass. Our music at our parish is very nice; traditional with piano/keyboard & vocals. We have several pianists; trust me, they are good & do not need any help! Absolutely beautiful. My concern is should they ask me to play after becoming a member & how I would respond. I’m kind of on the fence with the gutiar music at mass; my style would accompany everything fine. However; it really isn’t necessary. On the other hand I strongly feel God steering me to play. I’ve played in the protestant churches 'rock bands" before; didn’t really like it. I felt like I was at “American Idol” or something LOL. I’ve played all types of music, but the classical/solo guitar is my favorite. I’ve always seeked an outlet for this beautiful music I’ve learend over the years. Very difficult to acquire mind you. But, my heart is in the right place as I want all glory to go to God with the music. part of me says"your talent is not needed so much in that regard" while another part says " who are you to ‘hide’ that wonderful gift God gave you?". One suggestion was for me to play during confessional as people are praying/waiting to see the Priest. One thing is certain, my musical style would defintely enhance that experience. But; is it really needed?

Beautiful music, simple or difficult, played well with a guitar is the same as beautiful music played on any instrument. Bach preludes played on the guitar is certainly better than polka music played on the organ during Mass.

There is a time and place for party music but I agree with most on this forum. I really do think that music during Mass should be thoughtful and as beautifully done as the musicians are able to do. Music doesn’t have to be difficult to be beautiful. Simple music within the abilities of most is easy to find.

 

[OraLabora]

Pope Pius X, from Tra le Sollecitudini, 1903:

(emphasis mine)
I see no reason for this to be ignored. Obviously other things are allowed - in the same document, Pius X mentioned polyphony as second in the “hierarchy” under Gregorian chant; all other suitable music he lists as below Gregorian chant and polyphony.

My only point is this, as I mentioned above - sure, we can find in that document and in following documents after 1903 that other things (polyphony, modern compositions in the proper style, etc) are allowed, because the ideal is simply not possible (though it is more possible than people tend to think it is) in every parish setting. Otherwise, again, I see nothing that has gotten rid of this understanding of sacred music in the Church since 1903, and therefore, I see no reason to not at least be attempting to work towards the ideal.

You have a point that the Liturgical music should be specific to a particular day and a particular parish - but again, I am only suggesting that one should always be moving towards the ideal, as much as possible, with whatever Liturgical music choices one makes.

It’s interesting you bring this up. When Pius X wrote that, Gregorian chant was actually something of a modern innovation in the Church, being restored in the late 19th century by the monks of Solesmes. Prior to that and for a couple of hundred years, “Gregorian” chant had become heavily corrupted. The monks of Solesmes found old manuscripts and attempted to restore chant to its origins. What we sing as “Gregorian” chant today is really a relatively late interpretation (late 19th to the present day; Solesmes still conducts research on the subject) of what it was imagined Gregorian chant sounded like. We can’t know for sure.

Pius X was no sentimentalist. When he promulgated the reformed the Divine Office in 1910, he abrogated the Divine Office of Trent, which had been around for nearly 400 years. And by “abrogated” he meant business, any use of the Divine Office of Trent became illicit overnight, with no provisions to retain it in even limited circumstances; even the Liturgy of the Hours allowed limited use of the Office of 1960 (the updated Office of 1910) until Summorum Pontificum in 2007 fully allowed its use as an alternative to the Liturgy of the Hours by those bound to the Office. Moreover, the new Divine Office of Pius X disrupted several long-standing traditions that went back over 1000 years, most notable the breaking up of the “laudate” psalms (148, 149 and 150) that traditionally ended the psalmody at Lauds from before the time of St. Benedict (6th century). It would be difficult to label Pius X as a “traditionalist”! He in fact deserves full credit for setting some precedents that allowed the 1970 Liturgy of the Hours to take the form it does.

It was Pius X that promulgated the Vatican Edition of the Graduale Romanum in 2008, which was the fruits of the works of Solesmes that started in the late 19th century. The essence of the Graduale Romanum of 2008 carries over into the 1974 post-Vatican II Graduale Romanum also put out by the monks of Solesmes.

In short it would be wrong to say that Gregorian chant enjoyed a full continuous reign as the primary Church music from its origins in the Carolingian era up until Vatican II. It really only has been the “official” Church music in its present form from the late 19th century until today. There was a long gap where several corrupted versions of chant was the norm, with geographical differences and little standardization.

 

[bobballen_18]

It’s interesting you bring this up. When Pius X wrote that, Gregorian chant was actually something of a modern innovation in the Church, being restored in the late 19th century by the monks of Solesmes. Prior to that and for a couple of hundred years, “Gregorian” chant had become heavily corrupted. The monks of Solesmes found old manuscripts and attempted to restore chant to its origins. What we sing as “Gregorian” chant today is really a relatively late interpretation (late 19th to the present day; Solesmes still conducts research on the subject) of what it was imagined Gregorian chant sounded like. We can’t know for sure.

Pius X was no sentimentalist. When he promulgated the reformed the Divine Office in 1910, he abrogated the Divine Office of Trent, which had been around for nearly 400 years. And by “abrogated” he meant business, any use of the Divine Office of Trent became illicit overnight, with no provisions to retain it in even limited circumstances; even the Liturgy of the Hours allowed limited use of the Office of 1960 (the updated Office of 1910) until Summorum Pontificum in 2007 fully allowed its use as an alternative to the Liturgy of the Hours by those bound to the Office. Moreover, the new Divine Office of Pius X disrupted several long-standing traditions that went back over 1000 years, most notable the breaking up of the “laudate” psalms (148, 149 and 150) that traditionally ended the psalmody at Lauds from before the time of St. Benedict (6th century). It would be difficult to label Pius X as a “traditionalist”! He in fact deserves full credit for setting some precedents that allowed the 1970 Liturgy of the Hours to take the form it does.

It was Pius X that promulgated the Vatican Edition of the Graduale Romanum in 2008, which was the fruits of the works of Solesmes that started in the late 19th century. The essence of the Graduale Romanum of 2008 carries over into the 1974 post-Vatican II Graduale Romanum also put out by the monks of Solesmes.

In short it would be wrong to say that Gregorian chant enjoyed a full continuous reign as the primary Church music from its origins in the Carolingian era up until Vatican II. It really only has been the “official” Church music in its present form from the late 19th century until today. There was a long gap where several corrupted versions of chant was the norm, with geographical differences and little standardization.

Yes, you are very likely correct that what we hear today as Gregorian chant may not have been what people in the early Church heard, but I think it would be incorrect to claim that “it would be wrong to say that Gregorian chant enjoyed a full continuous reign as the primary Church music…”. These past 50 years are not necessarily an anomaly in the history of the practice of Church music - there are a wealth of Church documents on sacred music which have been ignored at some point in time, in the whole history of the Church. But not following the Church’s documents isn’t a reason to claim that such instruction did not exist - it did, but at least in some places, the instructions were largely not followed.

OK…I’m not sure why you’re bringing up “sentimentalism” with regards to this. I didn’t quote Pius X because I think he’s a sentimentalist who loves Gregorian chant. I quoted him because I think he has the best, most comprehensive, recent document in the Church on Sacred Music, and because I believe his document best expresses the mind of the Church on the matter. Popes after him who have actually been responsible for any documents on Sacred Music since then draw heavily from Pius X, both in ideas and also from the document itself, including JPII and Benedict XVI (I’m not aware of anything Pope Francis has put out regarding Sacred Music yet).

In any case, I didn’t make the claim that it has always actually happened. What you say is basically just proof that there have always been people who don’t care what the Church says and they will do whatever they want. I am aware of the history of Gregorian chant and its “downfall”, shall we say, ever since the advent of polyphony in the Medieval times, and how it was tinkered with following the Council of Trent. However, regardless of what has been practiced, the Church has always supported chant as being the music proper to the Liturgy, and has always forbidden secular-style music to be brought into the Liturgy. Yes, Pope Pius X also in the same document I mentioned described “modern music” as being allowed in the Liturgy - but only that music which, while allowing for contemporary nuances, was still composed in the style of the tradition of the Church - i.e., music which met the three requirements of truly sacred music (he laid out these three requirements in the document).

 

[7_Sorrows]

I enjoy guitar music at Mass.

 

[OraLabora]

I think it would be incorrect to claim that “it would be wrong to say that Gregorian chant enjoyed a full continuous reign as the primary Church music…”. These past 50 years are not necessarily an anomaly in the history of the practice of Church music - there are a wealth of Church documents on sacred music which have been ignored at some point in time, in the whole history of the Church. But not following the Church’s documents isn’t a reason to claim that such instruction did not exist - it did, but at least in some places, the instructions were largely not followed.

My point is that Gregorian Church did not enjoy a continuous reign in the Church. By the late 19th century, before the reforms of Solesmes, the chant heard in the Church was not by any means “Gregorian” but a significantly deformed version of it. Pius X ordered its restoration. True since VII it has largely fallen into disuse (but not completely, our schola is proof…, as well as the local Benedictines). But by the time the restoration came about, it had largely disappeared as “Gregorian” chant for at least a couple of hundred years. So while there was chant, it wasn’t Gregorian.

OK…I’m not sure why you’re bringing up “sentimentalism” with regards to this. I didn’t quote Pius X because I think he’s a sentimentalist who loves Gregorian chant. I quoted him because I think he has the best, most comprehensive, recent document in the Church on Sacred Music, and because I believe his document best expresses the mind of the Church on the matter.

I don’t dispute his document on chant. After all I didn’t join a Gregorian schola because I can’t stand Gregorian chant! I even chant the Divine Office every day, in Gregorian chant.

My point was that Pius X wasn’t caught by sentimentalism when it came time to reform the Church’s liturgy. He did it (with great results) with the restoration of Gregorian chant and the promulgation of the 1908 Vatican Edition of the Graduale Romanum. He did it to lesser success with the Divine Office. It isn’t well known, but the effects of his reforms of the Divine Office in 1910 were every bit as controversial as the reforms of Divine Office 1970. But we didn’t hear about it much then, because the Divine Office was not the realm of the laity other than sung Vespers and major feasts at the parish. They hardly would have noticed the reform. But Church musicians certainly did as the new division of the psalms played havoc with the antiphonary (Pius X set the precedent of dividing psalms into sections of more or less equal length to keep the length of Offices the same; things were speedier then though, and the new antiphonary came out 2 years later in 1912; the one for the 1970 LOTH only started to come out, in the first bit of many bits and pieces, in 2010).

In 1970 the laity were encouraged to participate in the Office, and with more and more availability of information got around to eventually comparing it to the 1960 Breviary (which is the same schema as 1910 but with changes to rubrics and classes of feasts), when they got the feeling something was “lost”, not realizing it wasn’t theirs to begin with (only the clergy and monastics prayed the entire Divine Office). In reality something was “gained” for the laity, the encouragement to participate fully in the Divine Office, and a breviary that greatly facilitated that task.

But the main point is that popes have always had the prerogative to change the liturgy, a prerogative that was exercised on major occasions at Trent, again at the turn of the 20th century, and just after Vatican II.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Hello. I’m a very recent convert; I join my parish in September. I’m attending RCIA classes now. I’m a classical guitarist; teach guitar locally. I’ve seen several threads here pertaining to guitar music at Mass. Our music at our parish is very nice; traditional with piano/keyboard & vocals. We have several pianists; trust me, they are good & do not need any help! Absolutely beautiful. My concern is should they ask me to play after becoming a member & how I would respond. I’m kind of on the fence with the guitar music at mass; my style would accompany everything fine. However; it really isn’t necessary. On the other hand I strongly feel God steering me to play. I’ve played in the protestant churches 'rock bands" before; didn’t really like it. I felt like I was at “American Idol” or something LOL. I’ve played all types of music, but the classical/solo guitar is my favorite. I’ve always seeked an outlet for this beautiful music I’ve learned over the years. Very difficult to acquire mind you. But, my heart is in the right place as I want all glory to go to God with the music. part of me says"your talent is not needed so much in that regard" while another part says " who are you to ‘hide’ that wonderful gift God gave you?". One suggestion was for me to play during confessional as people are praying/waiting to see the Priest. One thing is certain, my musical style would definitely enhance that experience. But; is it really needed?

Your talent is a gift from God; playing in Church is your gift to Him.

 

[bobballen_18]

My point is that Gregorian Church did not enjoy a continuous reign in the Church. By the late 19th century, before the reforms of Solesmes, the chant heard in the Church was not by any means “Gregorian” but a significantly deformed version of it. Pius X ordered its restoration. True since VII it has largely fallen into disuse (but not completely, our schola is proof…, as well as the local Benedictines). But by the time the restoration came about, it had largely disappeared as “Gregorian” chant for at least a couple of hundred years. So while there was chant, it wasn’t Gregorian.

OK, I don’t dispute this - if all you’re saying is that “Gregorian” chant, in practice, as it was known in the Medieval times, has not enjoyed “continuous reign”, then you’re correct, but only in the sense that the chant people may (or may not) have heard in the 16th-19th centuries was not technically, specifically “Gregorian” chant. This does not change the fact that the Church has always upheld chant as the music proper to the Liturgy.

I don’t dispute his document on chant. After all I didn’t join a Gregorian schola because I can’t stand Gregorian chant! I even chant the Divine Office every day, in Gregorian chant.

Good, I am very happy to hear that you do this! Just to be picky even though you probably didn’t necessarily mean this, the document is not specifically, only about chant. It is about all Sacred Music - definitions of what constitutes true Sacred Music, and suggestions for how to go about conforming the practices of parishes to the insights of the document (which only reinforce the Church’s longstanding views on Sacred Music).

My point was that Pius X wasn’t caught by sentimentalism when it came time to reform the Church’s liturgy.

OK, I see that. But I fail to see why you brought up “sentimentalism” when I never mentioned anything of the sort - that’s why to me it seems like you are in a sense equating “love of Gregorian chant” with “sentimentalism”, which is not something one should be doing. It could be true that I am a sentimental person, but you don’t know that, and I am not promoting Gregorian chant for sentimental reasons. Though I am stating my opinions at times, otherwise I am merely saying what the Church has said.

In 1970 the laity were encouraged to participate in the Office, and with more and more availability of information got around to eventually comparing it to the 1960 Breviary (which is the same schema as 1910 but with changes to rubrics and classes of feasts), when they got the feeling something was “lost”, not realizing it wasn’t theirs to begin with (only the clergy and monastics prayed the entire Divine Office). In reality something was “gained” for the laity, the encouragement to participate fully in the Divine Office, and a breviary that greatly facilitated that task.

But the main point is that popes have always had the prerogative to change the liturgy, a prerogative that was exercised on major occasions at Trent, again at the turn of the 20th century, and just after Vatican II.

I’m also not disputing anything about the popes having the prerogative to change the Liturgy. But just to be clear, I think “changing the Liturgy” and “Sacred Music”, though they are certainly related in a way, are two separate topics. Sure, the Liturgy can be changed, but the qualities of Sacred Music aren’t going to change. As I touched upon in my previous post, there are allowances for contemporary nuances/changes in the Church’s Liturgical music, so in that sense, there can be minor differences/changes in Sacred Music, but there will always be qualities inherent to true Sacred Music, and these qualities are discussed in Tra le Sollecitudini.

Despite how difficult it will be, especially if another person responds specifically to me, I want to go on record saying I’m done discussing this particular topic, because even though I think we are discussing a very important topic which all Catholics should be involved in/aware of, I don’t think we are really addressing the OP anymore. I absolutely love talking about this though.

 

[HelenRose]

I am sure that there is music as beautiful but could there be anything more beautiful than a good classical guitarist playing the accompaniment of “Ave Maria” by Charles Francois Gounod and Johann Sebastian Bach while a vocalist is singing the song?

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Why is it that all these threads focus on the instrument used rather than the style of music played? I consider myself an old fuddy-duddy who prefers more traditional expressions of worship, but even I would prefer a guitar accompanying Sacred Polyphony over, say, an organ accompanying a late 20th century hymn. Mind you, the guitar isn’t exactly some modern invention like turntables (NB: I’m 100% against turntables being used in worship). Spanish guitars go back to the early 16th century. They may’ve been considered vulgar instruments then, but they surely aren’t considered such now… sort of like another instrument that is nearly ubiquitous in churches.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Why is it that all these threads focus on the instrument used rather than the style of music played? I consider myself an old fuddy-duddy who prefers more traditional expressions of worship, but even I would prefer a guitar accompanying Sacred Polyphony over, say, an organ accompanying a late 20th century hymn. Mind you, the guitar isn’t exactly some modern invention like turntables (NB: I’m 100% against turntables being used in worship). Spanish guitars go back to the early 16th century. They may’ve been considered vulgar instruments then, but they surely aren’t considered such now… sort of like another instrument that is nearly ubiquitous in churches.

 

[Joegrane]

Hello. I’m a very recent convert; I join my parish in September. I’m attending RCIA classes now.

Welcome home!

I’m a classical gutiarist; teach guitar locally…my concern is should they ask me to play after becoming a member & how I would respond. I’m kind of on the fence with the gutiar music at mass; my style would accompany everything fine. … But, my heart is in the right place as I want all glory to go to God with the music. part of me says"your talent is not needed so much in that regard" while another part says " who are you to ‘hide’ that wonderful gift God gave you?". One suggestion was for me to play during confessional as people are praying/waiting to see the Priest. One thing is certain, my musical style would defintely enhance that experience…

I’ve been involved with a variety of church music groups over the past three decades. So much depends on how well it is done–musically, spiritually and technically.

I’ve also avoided groups that are creating a “show;” however those groups can be traditional or contemporary.

When I was in the seminary a few of us formed a “praise band” to provide music for youth events. One member was a talented classically trained guitarist. We used digital pianos that allowed us to layer very warm, soft strings under some of the meditative music.

We were incredibly fortunate that the brother of one of the members was a professional sound man. I was shocked at how much more effective our work was when he created an appropriate “vibe.” So many churches were designed for majestic organ and choir music, rather than a warm, meditative tone.

I was so impressed by the impact the sound man had that I switched to doing sound for church music groups, mostly contemporary ones.

I hope you will look for opportunities to share your talents, especially If you can get someone to provide effective sound reinforcement for your music.

God’s people are so beaten up emotionally by our sick society. Our churches should be a place of refuge and refreshment. Of course balance is needed. We don’t want events that are just “feel-good” services!

Are you familiar with John Michael Talbot? He was a nationally known Contemporary Christian artist and guitarist before becoming Catholic. Even at his age he still tours, doing para-liturgical services with music and little talks between the songs. The group I was in decades ago was modeled after Talbot’s work.

 

[truetofaith]

Welcome home!

I’ve been involved with a variety of church music groups over the past three decades. So much depends on how well it is done–musically, spiritually and technically.

I’ve also avoided groups that are creating a “show;” however those groups can be traditional or contemporary.

When I was in the seminary a few of us formed a “praise band” to provide music for youth events. One member was a talented classically trained guitarist. We used digital pianos that allowed us to layer very warm, soft strings under some of the meditative music.

We were incredibly fortunate that the brother of one of the members was a professional sound man. I was shocked at how much more effective our work was when he created an appropriate “vibe.” So many churches were designed for majestic organ and choir music, rather than a warm, meditative tone.

I was so impressed by the impact the sound man had that I switched to doing sound for church music groups, mostly contemporary ones.

I hope you will look for opportunities to share your talents, especially If you can get someone to provide effective sound reinforcement for your music.

God’s people are so beaten up emotionally by our sick society. Our churches should be a place of refuge and refreshment. Of course balance is needed. We don’t want events that are just “feel-good” services!

Are you familiar with John Michael Talbot? He was a nationally known Contemporary Christian artist and guitarist before becoming Catholic. Even at his age he still tours, doing para-liturgical services with music and little talks between the songs. The group I was in decades ago was modeled after Talbot’s work.

J.M. Talbot writes & plays some beautiful inspirational songs. I believe in using my talent for both entertaining people & for worshiping God.

 

[lax16]

Again, I think you and I agree like, 99% on this - what you wrote above I generally agree with; i.e., people refuse to sing it these days despite it being desired by the Church. But here’s the thing - we can’t just keep on going and ignoring in perpetuity what the Church prefers. At some point we have to introduce it, however slowly - I’m not advocating changing every single Mass to Gregorian chant and organ exclusively and immediately! - by competent and knowledgeable individuals. At some point, the Church as a whole needs to put more emphasis on restoring the widespread use of Gregorian chant (and organ), so that there will be more competent and knowledgeable individuals. So again, all I’m saying is that, yes, other things are allowed, but there’s no reason to not move forward with a goal in mind, a goal which is more perfectly thinking with the mind of the Church. I guess in a certain sense I’m only speaking for myself here, since I personally am quite knowledgeable about it, so I consider it my duty to be doing this (I am an organist and choir director). I don’t exactly blame everyone for not knowing, since it hasn’t exactly been “in fashion” for quite some time now, but I am just “spreading the word”, so to speak. This is why I said to the OP that, sure, go for it with your Classical guitar, and I believe it is possible that people could be drawn in closer union with our Lord through its beauty, but then I followed that with an encouragement to look into Gregorian chant. It was only a suggestion (though a highly recommended one on my part…haha).

I have been saying this for years.