Should the guitar be played in mass?

[DElias]

I have seen guitars used very appropriately in mass settings as part of a instrumental ensemble accompanying a choir. Like others have alluded, there is a perception of guitars being used in either rock or folk styles. The guitar is a very versatile instrument that has been in existence for a very long time. Antonio Stradivari, who is best known for his great violins, produced them which should speak a lot about its history. The written repertoire stretches back to the Renaissance which lends to its legitimacy outside of popular culture.

On the other hand, I can understand the apprehension, especially if the approach reflects that of Bob Dylan or Slash. A 30-second guitar solo during the Gloria would probably not be appropriate.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

At some point, the organ was a modern instrument…just sayin’…

Not the old organ argument again. For almost 2,000 years the organ was the only new instrument added at Mass. Now in the last 60 years, every instrument is allowed.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I can see King David singing one of the Psalms while stumming on one of those ancient instruments.

But not a the Divine worship in the Holy Temple.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I agree. The guitar is a stringed instrument like the harp and lyre. I can see King David singing one of the Psalms while stumming on one of those ancient instruments.

But not at the Divine worship in the Holy Temple.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I believe the proper question should be: Can the quitar be played in mass?

The first Christians rejected the hymns, (the contemporary songs) as gnostics, but beginning of St Ambrosius they became part of the Liturgy.

During the renaissance the polyphonic was considered earthly and avoided, Pius XII explicitly advises it as part of the liturgy.

The fist guitar Mass I attended was in 1958. It draw large crowd into the church.

If King David could praise the Lord with high sounding cymbals (Ps 150:5) so can we with guitar.

King David was not playing at the sacrifice of the altar.

 

[MarkThompson]

Not the old organ argument again. For almost 2,000 years the organ was the only new instrument added at Mass. Now in the last 60 years, every instrument is allowed.

Well, you’re forgetting whole orchestras, now aren’t you? Stringed instruments, drums . . . .

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I trust there will be a variety of instruments in heaven, some that we have never laid eyes on before.

I obviously would not want to see any guitars in the EF mass, but come on people, God does not designate some instruments as holy and some as unholy.

Edited to add: And as much as I see discussions on the Eastern forum about whether it is good or not to focus on ethnicities and cultures, I believe Latins have the same issues in that some believe that the Church of Christ is Western European and anything that doesn’t fit into that is unholy.

I guess this African mass should be anathema.

And here is a confirmation mass. Those African Catholics are up to no good, hey? He he.

Why were not all these instruments allowed before in Holy Mass until the mid 20th century? Do we know how to worship better than the Catholics of centuries past?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Well, you’re forgetting whole orchestras, now aren’t you? Stringed instruments, drums . . . .

Stringed instruments, drums were part of the whole orchestras? When did whole orchestras come into the Mass. Besides whole orchestras any other instruments allowed?

 

[MarkThompson]

Stringed instruments, drums were part of the whole orchestras?

If that’s what the score calls for, which it usually does.

When did whole orchestras come into the Mass.

Oh, the Baroque period, I suppose; probably somewhat earlier in a place like Venice. For quite a while, the music at key churches and cathedrals in the major cities could be counted on to be at the cutting edge of what composers were doing. Pius X himself remarked on the great popularity of theatrical-style music all across Italy during the 19th century.

Besides whole orchestras any other instruments allowed?

The Catholic Encyclopedia:
After the sixteenth century, orchestral instruments found admittance into some churches and court chapels, but restrictive regulations soon followed. While Lasso in Munich, Monteverde in Venice, and Scarlatti in Naples had at their disposal large orchestras, smaller churches with more modest resources satisfied themselves with the use of the trumpet or trombone in addition to the organ.
Missa Trombonica, anyone?

Oh, and don’t forget the wonderful serpent, used to accompany and strengthen the chant.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Oh, and don’t forget the wonderful serpent, used to accompany and strengthen the chant.

Yes and dont forget the serpent was tried and found wanting just like the guitar.

 

[Little_One0307]

Yes and dont forget the serpent was tried and found wanting just like the guitar.

Dang it. I just read this with a full mouth full of coffee and spewed it laughing so hard. I totally agree with this sentiment lol. Gotta go and clean the desk.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I really dont like going to mass that has contemperary stile music. Will this be adressed in the new mass?

“For almost a thousand years Gregorian chant, without any instrumental or harmonic addition, was the only music used in connection with the liturgy. The organ, in its primitive and rude form, was the first, and for a long time the sole, instrument used to accompany the chant.”

newadvent.org/cathen/10657a.htm

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I really dont like going to mass that has contemperary stile music. Will this be adressed in the new mass?

“From time to time regulations have been issued governing the use of instruments and condemning existing abuses. In 1728 Benedict XII rebuked a community of Benedictine nuns in Milan for using other instruments than the organ during high Mass and Vespers. He also forbade the Franciscans to use any other instrument than the organ in their conventual churches. Benedict XIV in his encyclical “Annus qui nunc vertentem” (19 February, 1749) tolerates only the organ, stringed instruments, and bassoons. Kettle-drums, horns, trombones, oboes, flutes, pianos, and mandolins are prohibited. In the “Regolamento” of 1884, flutes, trombones, and kettle-drums are permitted on account of the improved manner in which they are now used as compared with former times. In the name of Gregory XVI, the Cardinal-Vicar of Rome, Patrizi, prohibited (1842) the use of instruments in the Roman churches, with the exception of a few to be used in a becoming manner in accompanying the singing, and then only after permission had been secured from the proper authority. This order was renewed in 1856 by the same cardinal in the name of Pius IX. Pius X, in his “Motu proprio” on church music (22 November, 1903) in paragraph IV, says, “Although the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music, music with the accompaniment of the organ is also permitted. In some special cases, within due limits and with the proper regards other instruments may be allowed, but never without the special license of the ordinary, according to the prescription of the ‘Cæremoniale Episcoporum’. As the chant should always have the first place, the organ or instruments should merely sustain and never suppress it. It is not permitted to have the chant preceded by long preludes, or to have it interrupted with intermezzo pieces”, etc. Among those who have recently written, within the prescribed limits, works for voices and instruments for liturgical, are, I. Mitterer, G.J.E. Stehle, M. Brosig, Max Filke, George Zeller, L. Bonvin, S.J., C. Greith, F.X. Witt, P. Griesbacher, J.G. Meuerer, and J. Rheinberger. The present trend is, however, decidedly away from the instrumental idea and back to the purely vocal style. And it is recognized, and in many places acted upon, that the new version of the liturgical chant, proposed to the Catholic world by Pius X, gains its full beauty and effectiveness only when sung without instrumental accompaniment of any kind.”

newadvent.org/cathen/10657a.htm

 

[thequeen]

I really dont like going to mass that has contemperary stile music. Will this be adressed in the new mass?

I am with you Odell i have never been a fan of the guitar mass myself

 

[ExLibris]

Pope Saint Pius X:

Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane,** be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces.**

Pope Saint Pius X’s decree on liturgical form is a good one I think.

adoremus.org/1203PiusX.html

 

[convert999]

I’m a classically-trained church musician and I personally don’t like 99% of contemporary sacred music. It is not the guitar I dislike – it is the insipid music played on it. However, I am blessed to live in an area where there are 30 parishes within 20 miles of my house. I know which Masses use guitar/drum/etc. and I make it a point not to go to those Masses. I know other people like this type of music and they are free to go to the Masses that use it. If there were no choices I can see it being a problem. I know that many places do not have a lot of Catholic churches and I do feel for the people who are forced to listen to music they can’t stand. Music is such an emotional trigger for all of us. Even when I was protestant it was the most divisive issue in many churches.

 

[mardukm]

Nothing in creation is inherently evil. Guitars can be good even in Mass, depending on the local culture.

After reading through this thread, it appears a lot of people reject certain “innovations” simply because of their CONNOTATIONS in the local secular culture, not that there is anything inherently bad in them (though there are a few extremists here, I can see).

Since its all about connotations (or mostly), and not about the inherent value in thing, how do people feel about this:

I have met many Latins in real life who won’t touch the Traditional Latin Mass with a 100-foot pole because of the schismatic tendencies and holier-than-thou judgmentalism associated with those who promote it. If the majority of people in a parish or even diocese, especially a parish priest and even the local bishop shares this same view of the TLM, then it would seem fair, according to the standards of many here, that the TLM not be celebrated at all - since, after all, it is the connotation that counts.

Maybe if the holier-than-thou judgmentalism stops from Traditional Catholics, then the TLM might gain more acceptance from the run-of-the-mill Catholic.

Just a suggestion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I have met many Latins in real life who won’t touch the Traditional Latin Mass with a 100-foot pole because of the schismatic tendencies and holier-than-thou judgmentalism associated with those who promote it. If the majority of people in a parish or even diocese, especially a parish priest and even the local bishop shares this same view of the TLM, then it would seem fair, according to the standards of many here, that the TLM not be celebrated at all - since, after all, it is the connotation that counts.

I guess practicing judgmentalism in order to stay away from judgmentalism makes sense right? Sadly when one becomes a Traditional Catholic they are already wrongly stereotyped by the others as being a holier-than-thou Catholic even when all they are doing is expressing their love for or defending the legitimacy of the TLM. Regardless of the fact that these holier-than-thou Traditionalists quote Saints, Popes that are Saints, Popes old and new, and a slew of other historical figures in the Church and the Churches teachings itself on what is proper for liturgical worship they are nevertheless met with distaine as being “over the top” in their views and practices.

Maybe if the holier-than-thou judgmentalism stops from Traditional Catholics, then the TLM might gain more acceptance from the run-of-the-mill Catholic.

Maybe when these run-of-the-mill Catholics realize they are just as judgmental as their holier-than-thou Traditional Catholic counterparts then they might rid themselves of their ridiculous thoughts and participate in the TLM.

Something to pray for.

 

[mardukm]

I guess practicing judgmentalism in order to stay away from judgmentalism makes sense right? Sadly when one becomes a Traditional Catholic they are already wrongly stereotyped by the others as being a holier-than-thou Catholic even when all they are doing is expressing their love for or defending the legitimacy of the TLM. Regardless of the fact that these holier-than-thou Traditionalists quote Saints, Popes that are Saints, Popes old and new, and a slew of other historical figures in the Church and the Churches teachings itself on what is proper for liturgical worship they are nevertheless met with distaine as being “over the top” in their views and practices.

Maybe when these run-of-the-mill Catholics realize they are just as judgmental as their holier-than-thou Traditional Catholic counterparts then they might rid themselves of their ridiculous thoughts and participate in the TLM.

But isn’t it true that after Vatican 1, the seminal Traditional Catholics actually called the new Mass invalid, and a group even went into schism over the matter? So is the perception of the run-of-the-mill Catholic that far off-base? I mean, I’ve never heard of a NO Catholic say that the EF is invalid. A lot of people just prefer to understand the Mass, and participate in it more. It is the Traditional Catholics who traditionally (no pun intended) judge the NO Mass as invalid, right?

And don’t some vociferously to so even today?

It seems something has got to give in order for the TLM to regain its former glory in Latin Catholicism. And it seems to me the supporters of the TLM have to do more, even if just as penance for the sin of schism that occurred. Wouldn’t TLM’ers welcome an opportunity to make reparation for what happened (not that TLM’ers today are to blame for what happened) - according to the principles of Latin Catholicism?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

But isn’t it true that after Vatican 1, the seminal Traditional Catholics actually called the new Mass invalid, and a group even went into schism over the matter? So is the perception of the run-of-the-mill Catholic that far off-base? I mean, I’ve never heard of a NO Catholic say that the EF is invalid. A lot of people just prefer to understand the Mass, and participate in it more. It is the Traditional Catholics who traditionally (no pun intended) judge the NO Mass as invalid, right?

I believe your refering to the SSPX and I dont believe they were considered schimatic because of their opposition to the reforms of the liturgy even though they are against them. Anyway the perception of the run-of-the-mill Catholic to not participate in the EF (TLM) because of the actions of the SSPX is very off base, about as off base as someone having a problem with practicing Eastern Catholicism because they incorrectly believe it will lead them down the same road as those that left the Church during the Great Schism. Also I have heard plenty of NO Catholics say the EF is invalid and believe me that has been the nicer of their comments towards the EF. But regardless of what I have heard and what you have heard the reality comes down to this: the EF is valid, and the NO is vaild but not practiced to the standards of what Vatican II wanted it to be. Contrary to popular belief most Traditionalist Catholics do NOT think the NO is invalid but rather believe that the way in which the NO has been practiced and carried out is what is not valid.

It seems something has got to give in order for the TLM to regain its former glory in Latin Catholicism. And it seems to me the supporters of the TLM have to do more, even if just as penance for the sin of schism that occurred. Wouldn’t TLM’ers welcome an opportunity to make reparation for what happened (not that TLM’ers today are to blame for what happened) - according to the principles of Latin Catholicism?

In the Latin Rite the only thing that has to change is the Catholics themselves: basically they need to start appreciating their heritage and Latin identity rather than changing it into something that is easier for them to practice. With that said the TLM has always kept its glory and will always keep its glory even though there is a huge number of Catholics that do not appreciate it. In short the TLM’ers shouldn’t have to make reparations for other peoples lack of appreciation for the TLM due to their distorted perceptions.

If the TLM is guilty of anything then its inspiring Catholics with a great love and appreciation for God and their Catholic heritage: a heritage that was tossed out of the Church by those Catholics that claimed they were doing the tossing in the “spirit of Vatican II” when the true spirit of Vatican II didn’t warant the majority of their actions.