Is Guitar mass okay

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jragzz123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The wording by the council fathers seemed pretty definitive to me. I have no reason not to feel bound by it until the Church changes it’s mind.
 
Hammond Organ? Pshaw! I want a Cassavant pipe organ with 50 stops and 68 ranks like they have at First Presbyterian Church of Bellevue
Bellevue, Washington.(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
The wording by the council fathers seemed pretty definitive to me. I have no reason not to feel bound by it until the Church changes it’s mind.
Click to expand...
The Church does not have to change its mind because SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM allows other musical instruments to be used at Mass and allows the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority to make that decision. The local bishops presumably allow the parish priests to actually decide.
 
I never said it didn’t allow other instruments. I said the organ was preferred (again, my interpretation). You like straw men arguments, don’t you?
 
tafan2 said:
I never said it didn’t allow other instruments. I said the organ was preferred (again, my interpretation). You like straw men arguments, don’t you?
Click to expand...
You have called it a teaching and say you feel bound.
Well it is not a teaching and you are not bound.
 
thistle said:
We are bound by by infallible and non-infallible teachings. We are not bound over a preference for an organ to be used at Mass.
Click to expand...
This isn’t a matter of teaching, but a matter of law. We are bound to observe the liturgical regulations laid down by the Church in documents on liturgy, and especially Sacrosanctum Concillium.

from Sacrosanctum Concillium:
22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

Sacrosanctum Concillium does not require an organ, that is true: but you didn’t say that. You wrote that what I posted isn’t a “teaching of the Church.” That’s a bit of a red herring. The document itself represents a binding regulation with regards to our sacred liturgy. It is NOT merely a set of suggestions. It is our Constitution on the Liturgy, the main legal document that governs other regulations having to do with the liturgy. No one can change that except those with the authority to do it. It IS a teaching of the Church that the Pope and the bishops DO have the authority to regulate the liturgy.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
40.png
Phemie:
If singing breaks out at parties it’s usually accompanied by guitars.
Click to expand...
If singing breaks out at your home parties, you’re lucky. (Especially if you have children there and no one needs a designated driver…)
Click to expand...
I haven’t hosted a party in decades. But I do attend the occasional event after our drama group’s performances and some of my friends’ Christmas parties. Singing always breaks out but that’s in the nature of the folk I hang around with.
 
ralfyman said:
Given that, I’m guessing that it’s not being done today because the rich and Church organizations with large sums of money invested in stocks, etc., are not donating or providing enough funds, and not just for organs but even for Churches and more priests.
Click to expand...
I think there is a lot of pressure on churches (Protestant and Catholic, and all the “fringe” movements like Unitarianism, etc.) to give a lot of money and resources to help the poor, the elderly, the homeless, the immigrants, women and children, etc. and to combat social plagues like racism, class ism, illiteracy, urban blight, social injustice, etc.

I have to say that I agree that we probably need to stop building mansions that serve us, and instead, serve others from a more modest building.

But OTOH, the poor and homeless, friendless, lonely, etc. will enjoy a beautiful palace-like church, ethereal music, friendly folks, the occasional fellowship dinner or treat, and a warm welcome. Sometimes, we concentrate too hard on meeting material needs and forget to also meet the needs of the soul–beauty, peace and quiet, humor and laughter, uplifting music of all styles, and especially fellowship and friendship, etc.

Some of the oldest and most beautiful churches in our city are in the poorest neighborhoods, and they provide a lovely and loving refuge from the ugliness and poverty of everyday life for many of their neighbors.

Lots of issues here.

From what I have seen, most organs and other objects of beauty in a church (e.g., art work, new vestments, etc.) are gifted to the church by rich people, or by people who aren’t rich, but are willing to join their widow’s mite with the gold that the rich people can easily spare.
 
PetraG said:
Sacrosanctum Concillium does not require an organ, that is true: but you didn’t say that.
Click to expand...
I did say that. See my replies to tafan2.

By the way, I like the organ but I am not some traditional music fanatic who is hung up on it being a must at Mass.
 
thistle said:
I did say that. See my replies to tafan2.
Click to expand...
I meant you didn’t say that when you replied to me. I quoted Sacrosanctum concilium and you replied tersely that “That is not a Church teaching” and elsewhere “My objection has been to the word teaching. It is NOT a Church teaching. A suggestion, recommendation, preference is not a teaching. We are bound by teachings. We are not bound by what instruments to use at Mass.”

You are right that it is not a teaching, because it is actually a regulation. You are not correct in saying that we are not bound to observe regulations that concern what instruments to use at Mass. We are!

When the regulation says: “other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful” that does imply that there ARE instruments which are not suitable and which cannot be made suitable for sacred use.

Did I ever say that the guitar is an instrument that cannot be made suitable for Mass? No. Does it mean that there are in fact boundaries on what instruments to use at Mass? It absolutely does. Sorry, it is not a teaching about faith and morals but there is a teaching about faith and morals that gives authority to regulate the liturgy to the Pope and the bishops. Their regulations are in fact binding on the faithful. The Constitution on the Liturgy is in fact such a regulation and it does have binding force.
 
Last edited:
I can be if I want to be. I have no desire to say a council of the church was wrong.
 
tafan2 said:
I can be if I want to be. I have no desire to say a council of the church was wrong.
Click to expand...
You can feel bound if you want. That’s your personal choice. I was pointing out that Catholics are not bound by that.
I don’t get your point about not saying the Council was wrong. It’s not wrong. It says guitar and other musical instruments are permitted at Mass.
 
Most unusually I went to Mass today (a requiem). Guitars in force. I liked them. So did my departed friend.
 
Not being bound is the same as saying I am free to say the council was wrong. I won’t do so. That was my point.
 
If I recall those dark days of folk music in masses, the practice was reserved to one mass on Sunday. Leaving the " old fogeys" a choice of 4 others.
My experience was that it was geared toward the young. And my memory is that it created enthusiasm. We had a younger priest who managed to energise the young in our parish.
I recall young kids that were Jewish and protestant specifically, join the Catholic kids and priest in activities.
In my 7th and 8th year the school emptied into the church ( as we did on occasions) each of those years to watch these kids joining the church and receiving first communion. The folk mass, it’s attendant practices was a part of the overall participation.
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
Not being bound is the same as saying I am free to say the council was wrong. I won’t do so. That was my point.
Click to expand...
I must be missing something. When did I say the Council was wrong?
The Council allows use of organ and other musical instruments at Mass.
 
See above post. You have misrepresented my words multiple times. But nevertheless, if I have done so, I apologize. Now let’s let this subject die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top