Musical Instruments in Mass

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m not trying to prove anything to you. I’m just explaining why I don’t care.

Why don’t you ask your bishop?

I actually wrote to my bishop about the abuses in my parish, and mentioned that particular one. He didn’t contradict my citation of canon 21. Qui tacet consentire…

How did he explain the widespread “violation” of what you consider to be Church law?

If not, the only conclusion is that those leaders have neglected their duty to promote adherence to canonical practice.

I’m sure our bishops would be relieved and grateful to know that we keep the fact that they are human, and subject to very human mistakes, in mind, instead of holding them to an impossibly high standard.

I don’t think it is an impossibly high standard to teach the faith faithfully. If you are uncomfortable with the notion of accusing the entire clergy with dereliction of duty, them maybe you should allow for the possibility that they are right and you are wrong.

So why are you so afraid of such a conclusion? It’s not like the indefectibility of the Church would disintegrate because the bishops made a mistake; we’ve been through much worse in Church history.

Then for your own peace of mind, let it go.

The priests you did ask probably did not want to bother with something that they considered not important enough

This was a matter of obedience to the highest legislative authority in the Church…

Today it is a matter of obedience to your reading of a century-old document of a practice, not a doctrine, much like eating meat on Friday, or fasting from midnight before communion. It can be changed. Trust the Church that acceptance of other musical instruments has changed and drop your insistence on finding the original document for your self. It will be no sin for you if you do this. If you are right and the entire Church leadership has been leading the people into apostasy, it could theoretically be a sin for them. But not for the people who trusted them unknowingly. And despite your reading of Pius X, you don’t know that the practice has not changed. So accepting what your priest tells you is not a sin because you would not be knowingly sinning. This is where a little bit of humility can be such a comfort.

 

[snarflemike]

I’m trying to imagine the position of a new bishop. He’s got a hundred parishes. Does he really tell them all to get rid of their pianos (there’s almost no market for used pianos, BTW, and lots of nice ones get trashed these days), and now they need to buy a hundred organs and find a hundred organists? Or does he look the other way?

Which brings up another thought. Piano playing is definitely on the decline at least in America. In our metropolitan area that once supported seven piano stores, only one is left even though the population is almost double now (told this by the owner of that store), and as mentioned, it is often difficult or impossible to even give a piano away. So maybe the “problem” of pianos will solve itself when there’s nobody left to play them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s an impossibly high standard to expect our shepherds to be correct about everything, 100% of the time, especially when we’re speaking of discipline, not doctrine.
[/quote]
If it is unreasonable to expect the shepherds of our Church to be 100% correct on matters of discipline, why do you hold yourself (and apparently everyone you argue with) to that standard?

So accepting what your priest tells you is not a sin because you would not be knowingly sinning. This is where a little bit of humility can be such a comfort.

That’s false humility to justify laziness, that’s all. And no wonder why the nullity process takes several years these days due to the shortage of canonists; what layman would want to pursue years upon years of education to be insulted in such a manner?

I’m not insulting you. I’m advising you on what to do for your own peace of mind and mental health. This issue has clearly caused you a great deal of distress and anxiety, even to the point of quitting a ministry that you probably found fulfilling at the time. That is a lot to give up in the pursuit of some obscure point of discipline.

 

[Peeps]

There are plenty of sacred music historians who would disagree with much of this.

May I ask if you attend Mass at a church that you consider “musically correct?” Thank you.

 

[Peeps]

I’m glad to hear that you are worshipping and receiving The Lord Jesus in a church where you are happy.

 

[Peeps]

I’m not talking about videos. I’m talking about books, textbooks written by music professors for universities. I haven’t read as many as I would like but I’m working on it. I’m currently studying sacred music history under the guidance of a teacher with a doctoral degree in Music Theory and Composition who has also been a church musician (organist/pianist, choir director, bell choirs, teacher in schools, private lesson teacher) for over 50 years (all Christian churches including Catholic, but mainly Protestant Mainline denominations).

It would be fun and interesting to get you and him together, along with some of the other music professors that I know, for a good ol’ debate.

I have to tell you that your pronouncements against the piano in Mass and against the bishops and priests that I trust have caused me to be very hurt and upset in my soul. I’m guessing that other Catholics on this forum feel the same way. I don’t plan to convert to your way of thinking, because I think it’s incorrect. I know you feel that you have more insight into this issue than the church authorities, but I think you’re wrong. I hope I’m saying this in a polite way that isn’t offensive to you.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well, how much are you going to give up in order to obey the legislative authority of the Church?
[/quote]
A lot - if I was sure that doing otherwise was disobedient to the legislative authority of the Church. But for only a suspicion that I might be disobeying the legislative authority of the Church (which is all you really have at this point regarding the issue in question) I would not give up very much at all.

I’m not insulting you.

Nor did I say you were; I’m simply pointing out that this kind of clericalism is insulting to the laity in general…

My mistake. I thought you were saying it was insulting to you personally when I suggested a more humble approach to following the advice of your priest and bishop. I stand corrected.

I do, actually. I just returned from a choir rehearsal two hours ago.

It is good to hear that you did not give up music ministry entirely - just changed parishes.

 

[pnewton]

If only a few dioceses allowed pianos in their churches, I might be inclined to think you’re right. But when parishes all over the United States have pianos, including in dioceses with beloved bishops who have been champions for righteousness and have even faced persecution –

I actually tried to find one anywhere in the world that subscribe to this theory that pianos are banned. I think the Catholic Church is 100% in agreement that they are not banned. If I was convinced a street was one-way, and I met 1000 cars coming at me swerving, and I was the only one going in my direction, I would think I might question whether I missed something.

 

[JButky]

I actually tried to find one anywhere in the world that subscribe to this theory that pianos are banned. I think the Catholic Church is 100% in agreement that they are not banned.

As someone else already posted… the Musicam Sacram permits the use of musical instruments for liturgy. A reading of #62-66 in particular should make it clear that piano is not a “banned” instrument

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_.../vat-ii_instr_19670305_musicam-sacram_en.html

 

[snarflemike]

"The use of other instruments may also be admitted in divine worship, given the decision and consent of the competent territorial authority, 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."

In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.

Playing Devil’s Advocate, somebody might ask where the “decision and consent of the competent territorial authority” is to be found?

And how and when was it determined 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"?

Also, how and where was it determined that the piano was NOT, “by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only”, and thus not “to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration”?

My point is that citing MS lists the tests that an instrument must pass for liturgical use, but does not demonstrate that any particular instrument passed the tests. I understand that the piano is long since out of the liturgical gate, but the questions do remain.

 

[CRV]

@snarflemike whilst I do not wish to address all the questions you raised, except the third one, the document in the link below may answer that particular one, and so I provide the link for your perusal. At the end of the last paragraph you quoted and bolded from the document Musicam Sacram, is the number in brackets 44. - “44. a. Instruction of the S.CR., 3 September 1958, n. 70.”

De musica sacra et sacra liturgia Instruction on Sacred Music and Sacred Liturgy Sacred Congregation for Rites — 3 September, 1958 scroll down to number 70.

Whilst I do not know what the Sacred Congregation for Rites back then specifically had in mind when issuing these documents, I do wonder if perhaps the piano was associated with bar rooms/saloons etc ie profane usage - which we today would call secular usage. Also if this was to make a distinction between the everyday and the liturgical worship of God? Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[JButky]

Playing Devil’s Advocate, somebody might ask where the “decision and consent of the competent territorial authority” is to be found?

And how and when was it determined 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"?

Also, how and where was it determined that the piano was NOT, “by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only”, and thus not “to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration”?

Yes all very good questions… Quite simply, the standard as described in the document is extremely broad. Competent territorial authority could be a pastor.

Now it is extremely difficult to exclude piano given this criteria. When you have a piano functioning as a support for the singers and is capable of reproducing the chordal accompaniment and can very much play exactly the same music as that of the organ, it is really difficult to make an argument that it is not adaptable for sacred use. The onus here is on usage with a reference given to not allow instruments that cannot be adapted for that purpose. Piano IS an accompaniment instrument (among other things) . It only differs mechanically in sound production from the organ.

So what about instruments for secular use only. I could make an argument for drum sets to be excluded or electric guitar, but not other specific guitars or drums in general. Guitar -chordal instrument capable of supporting singing playing the same sacred music modified for the instrument with a different method of sound production.

So as far as “decision and consent” and “common opinion and use” the asnswer is something like “without any objections the motion passes” silence OK approved…

Musicians are given gifts to evolve music through those God Given talents. If someone is given a gift to take any instrument and adapt to meet this criteria I find it a difficult proposition to try and stop that. I would even probably grieve a little if someone did. An instrument is just a dead tool. The musician is the music maker. This instruction can be seen as not directed to instruments (with one small exception) but how musicians should use them. That is the greater issue.

 

[Peeps]

Whilst I do not know what the Sacred Congregation for Rites back then specifically had in mind when issuing these documents, I do wonder if perhaps the piano was associated with bar rooms/saloons etc ie profane usage - which we today would call secular usage. Also if this was to make a distinction between the everyday and the liturgical worship of God? Just my thoughts on the matter.

If the piano was banned back in the old days ecause it was associated with bar rooms/saloons, then why wasn’t the organ banned because it was associated with movie accompaniments and baseball games?

And BOTH instruments have long been associated with secular use in concert venues. I believe the organ in Balboa Park in San Diego is still drawing crowds for its concerts.

Also, both instruments are used in the secular setting of private homes. I know several organists in our city who have pipe organs in their homes, and many people have a piano and use it for secular music.

ALL music instruments and musical styles can be used for the sacred and the secular. I enjoy watching ghost shows about alleged hauntings in sites around the world. Just this past weekend, I was watching a show that used chant as the background music throughout the entire show. To this day, I have a difficult time associating any chant with a religious setting because I’ve heard it used in horror movies all my life. But I know in my mind that chant can and probably should be used in sacred settings–I don’t claim that chant should be banned because it is commonly used as the background music for shows about ghosts and monsters.

 

[SeeTheLight]

We have a violinist that is superb and honestly it takes the music to the next level. I’m not a fan of guitars and do prefer the organ in most cases.

God Bless

 

[CRV]

Forgive me for daring to express my thoughts about why the Sacred Congregation made their decisions as they did, or for wondering aloud about possible reasons.

Apparently I’m not entitled to express my opinion.

 

[Peeps]

Forgive me for daring to express my thoughts about why the Sacred Congregation made their decisions as they did, or for wondering aloud about possible reasons.

Apparently I’m not entitled to express my opinion.

I apologize if my post upset you. I was not criticizing your comments, which I thought made a lot of sense. I was just expounding on your comment that pianos were associated with bar rooms in the past. I apparently didn’t express that in my post. I did not intend to disagree with you.

Of course you are entitled to express your opinion, and it was a good comment.