B
benedictgal
Guest
The document that ac claire quoted from Pope Pius XII remains in force regarding electronic means. The computer is not a musical instrument, per se, so it falls under what the venerable Pontiff wrote.
- Status
M
Melchior_1
Guest
My query is;
IF the music is reverent.
IF the music keeps people mindful of the Eucharist.
IF the music does not distract from the Mass.
IF the music pertains to the readings and Gospel.
IF the music is being done without theatrics.
IF the GIRM is being followed.
Does it matter what the instruments are?
IF the music is reverent.
IF the music keeps people mindful of the Eucharist.
IF the music does not distract from the Mass.
IF the music pertains to the readings and Gospel.
IF the music is being done without theatrics.
IF the GIRM is being followed.
Does it matter what the instruments are?
B
benedictgal
Guest
Yes, it does. We need to read the authoritative documents of the Holy See in tandem with the GIRM. Musicam Sacram, which has not been abrogated, cautions against using instruments that are primarily associated with the secular. What folks, as I read this thread, do not want to see nor admit, is that electric guitars, electric bass guitars and drum kits are commonly and primarily associated with secular music.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Is there anything wrong with the Church taking these instruments and using them for good?
Also, I’m assuming that you do not want Microphones in the Church either. Or video cameras to tape anything, still cameras to take photos. The next time your see our Holy Father on TV during Mass (or any Mass on TV for that matter) we better shut it down. I’m not saying that to be obtuse, I’m taking the logic to the next step.
This all of course means I, and others, have wasted a LOT of money at our “un-liturgical” weddings with those video cameras, photographers, and microphones.
EDIT: Also, as recently as 2004 Life Teen representatives met with the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship regarding how they do the Mass. Corrections and modifications were made, however the use of modern instruments were not forbidden. IF there was a HUGE issue about it, you think they would have mentioned something during those meetings.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Let’s not use the straw man argument, Melchior. Musicam Sacram indicates that:
Do you have documentation that supports your claim? Furthermore, in 2005, the Fathers of the Synod on the Eucharist listed this as a major concern:
The proponents of LifeTeen, let alone the supporters of these kind of instruments, have yet to respond to this valid concern that the Synod Fathers raised. Mind you, these were bishops who have concerns about this particular genre of music.
Pope Benedict, in Sacramentum Caritatis, responded to their concerns:
This particular genre cannot be divorced from the type of instruments used. The organ, for example, was not meant to accompany the PW genre. This style of music was written precisely for electric guitars, electric bass guitars and drum kits.
P
pnewton
Guest
By the same token, one could state with equal validity that polyphonic chant is not desired in a perfect world, as that was once forbidden.
Seeing the significant changes in the Mass since 1958 and the existence of Musicam Sacram, I give the 1958 documnent no more consideration than an historical piece, worthy of consideration only with in the context it was written.
B
benedictgal
Guest
But, a good chunk of it was never abrogated. In fact, the documents make references to what Pope Pius XII wrote, even going back to what Pope St. Pius X had stated. Even Pope John Paul II was not quick to disregard what Pope St. Pius X wrote, readily admitting that the problems that plagued liturgical music back in the saintly pontiff’s day were being regurgitated in our own time.
S
Sarabande
Guest
Thing is, it was forbidden due to the fact that early polyphony sounded more secular in nature. It wasn’t until Guillame de Machaut in the 1300s refined the music composition and the presentation of polyphony, did it become acceptable for liturgy.
Now, I know that there are purists out there who probably could agree with your statement, believing that only monophonic chant would be acceptable use for liturgy, since it is one of the only types of music which had its origins for sacred use, whereas almost all other forms of music and instrumentation had some sort of secular beginnings. I’m not of the purist train of thought and the Church isn’t either.
To me, if a person can refine the way their instrument is played or a piece of music is composed or “performed” for liturgy and the Church accepts it, it can be acceptable. Singing completely operatically is not acceptable for mass. Refining my voice in a way to be less “dramatic”, “operatic” etc. and still keeping in the classical training and maintaining reverence, is. That is the same for all musicians, whatever instrument they play.
And I think that is the difference with some people’s thoughts on instrumentation. There are people who do not want to refine how they play a certain instrument and so what the play will sound too secular in sound. For instance, I’ve heard beautiful renditions of Ave Maria played on classical guitar and you really can’t equate it with a secular sound, but I’ve heard guitarists and singers play the same piece, “jazzing” it up or making it sound more like a broadway hit or pop song.
B
benedictgal
Guest
In responding to another thread in another forum, I came across this interesting piece of information. If you look at the citation from Musicam Sacram:
You will note footnote 44. Footnote 44 references on Instruction on Sacred Music given by the former Congregation for Sacred Rites (now known as the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments). It notes that:
It goes on to restate the matter here:
As I stated in the other thread, just because it is 52 years old, that does not necessarily make that particular footnote (and the Instruction it’s taken from) outdated.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
- “No kind of sacred music is prohibited from liturgical actions by the Church as long as it corresponds to the spirit of the liturgical celebrations itself and the nature of its individual parts (Constitution on the Liturgy, Art. 116), and does not hinder the active participation of the people*(Constitution on the Liturgy, Art. 28).*”
- "The playing of the organ, or of other instruments characteristic of a particular people."
B
benedictgal
Guest
But, you are still missing the section that I cited which is at the heart of this discussion, Kevin:
This section comes from the same document that you quoted. So, even quoting the document does not make your argument.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
“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.” (Constitution on the Liturgy, Art.120)
In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. (Instructions of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 3September 1958, n.70)
B
benedictgal
Guest
But, again, you are ignoring the fundamental point: the issue of secular usage. Furthermore, “youth” is not defined as a culture per se, insofar as inculturation is concerned. Inculturation deals with people in indegenous lands and missionary territories.
Thus, your arguments fail to take this point into consideration.
A
ac_claire
Guest
The only culture that electric guitars come from is the secular, popular culture. We all know this is true. It’s dealt with, among other places, here:
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
If use of an organ is pertinent to sacred music then what do you make of secular groups who take an organ into a musical arrangement. If taking an electric guitar into Holy Mass is considered sacramental secularization, does this make that piece of work sacred?
To me this seems a logical proposition.
B
benedictgal
Guest
But, that is not how the Church sees it. The organ has pride of place in the Church insofar as instruments are concerned. With all due respect, what you fail to realize, as I read your posts, is that what is commonly used for secular music is not suitable for usage within the confines of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In this case, the converse is not applicable to the Church since the organ has been used for Sacred Music for several centuries. Please refer to Sarabande’s explanation, as written by Pope Benedict XVI. He is an authority on the subject as he is a classically-trained musician and has a keen sense of the sacred.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
I find it interesting to think the original accompaniment to the Psalms was David’s stringed instrument, the forerunner of the modern day guitar.
The organ is said to have originated in Chaldea or Greece, where it first appeared as Pan Pipes or Syrinx and was used for public celebrations. It was not adopted for use in the church until A.D. 450. It did not appear in Rome until the 7th century (where it was used to improve the singing of the congregation.)
The organ began life on a secular note and has now replaced the stringed instrument engaged by David in early liturgical worship.
The organ is said to have originated in Chaldea or Greece, where it first appeared as Pan Pipes or Syrinx and was used for public celebrations. It was not adopted for use in the church until A.D. 450. It did not appear in Rome until the 7th century (where it was used to improve the singing of the congregation.)
The organ began life on a secular note and has now replaced the stringed instrument engaged by David in early liturgical worship.
P
pnewton
Guest
In fact, Pope John Paul II reafirmed much of what was said, that which he saw as needed which is why* I* see Musicam Sacram as the rule to be followed. I see the previous historica documents as useful guidelines to how we got where we are, even as I see Sing to the Lord as a useful guideline of the way Musicam Sacram can be applicable to the United States, at least as seen by some bishops.
From there, I do the best I can. At present, I am somewhat conservative in what I see as allowable, though not so much as others. Oh, and I clear everything through the priest.
I think one point you were trying to make early on needs to be brought up again. Whether we all agree or not, there is no reason to ignore these instructions written for us. We must try to see things as the Church sees things.
S
Sarabande
Guest
You might have missed the post (post 151, page 11) providing the actual reason/history for the use of the organ during liturgy which Benedict XVI gave in an article/lecture to the Church Music Department of the State Conservatory of Music in Stuttgardt, Germany. Pnewton also provided a link to the entire lecture. It’s well worth reading thoroughly - so much information to drink in.
I really enjoyed it myself.musicasacra.com/theological-problems/
Anway, the organ wasn’t employed to improve the singing of the congregation. In short, it represented “all the voices of the cosmos”. I’ll just quote the highlighted part from my original post:
Originally, with regard to the secular reasoning:
How the Church began to view it:
and… how the secular surroundings, such as the emperor, was against the Church and the Pope having “cosmic claim”, etc… and how the Church fought this by keeping the use of organ basically in order to put the emperor in his place:
In addition, the use of the organ was to separate itself from the old ways of praising God in terms of music and other traditions. Although the Church has an inheritance from the Jewish faith, she wanted to be sure to not be like worship in the Temple, showing that the Church surpassed that of the worship in the synogogues due to its claim to the divine cosmos - the “very dimensions of the Universal”:
For me, just based on this history alone, to use the argument of what was used for worship and praise in the Jewish faith during the OT, is no longer a good one. Prior to reading his Holiness’ article, I wouldn’t have had a good enough answer for myself, at least, to this argument except that this was what the Church wanted, not what Jewish faith wanted. But just this bit in his well-researched and interesting article/lecture on Church music, provides much explanation. The Church was supposed to have “surpassed” this, creating a new way of worship and prayer because she is supposed to have the fulfillment of the Truth through Christ. Whether or not people agree with that is one thing and can make decent arguments and very good reasons for using different instruments other than the organ, without using the OT/David used it, etc. argument. But based on this, there was obviously a lot of well-thought out reasons behind much of what the Church chose to do to delineate all of this, especially early on in the Church’s history.
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, that is interesting. As Catholics, however, we seek to obey and listen to what our bosses tell us in such matters and not what we think they should tell us. It is useful to understand these things, as they reveal to us a Church that is not stagnant and does incorporate that which is secular and make it holy. The examples of this extend beyond polyphonic chant and the organ. Pagan locationg, holidays and traditions have all been incorporated into the tradition of the Catholic faith. This is also why I have no problem with an instrument because it is commonly secular, as long as it is not only secular, as the Pope John Paul II has said.
If Christmas can become the sacred Holy Day it is now and St. Peter’s Bascilica built on Nero’s Circus, then anything is possible. I do not ever forsee the day that the organ and Gregorian chant will ever be denied the place of pride they have been given. Centuries have not changed this.
- Status