SPLIT: Musical instruments at Mass

[ac_claire]

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.

Can’t help but see this attitude as splitting hairs on the issue. Our bosses have actually told us a LOT about this. But are you really going to insist that before you pretend to know what they’re *really *saying you want it to be spelled out in technical terms with every single instrument you like specifically referred to? Why is that necessary? If you ask for that you’re admitting that you really don’t understand what is meant by the terms “popular” and “secular” music forms in the culture today and I don’t believe for a second that any of us don’t understand those terms.

It’s just not intellectually honest. It’s like saying, it doesn’t matter that there are mountains of documents showing *clearly *the kind of music the Holy See desires for the Mass, and what the Holy Father’s vision is for returning to a more traditional form of sacred music in all parishes; mountains of documents go from outright condemning secular music forms in the Mass to just warning that they aren’t the best and should be avoided, etc. To look at all of that and still say, “well guitars are ok because they’re not completely secular, they’re only ALMOST completely secular.” Is that really the best leg to stand on? And this is looking at ALL the documents about sacred liturgy, everything that the Holy Father has written and said as far as we know at least. NONE of it supports secular music forms and instruments in the liturgy. They all do the opposite.

Or sure, we can pretend that it’s still not clear enough and that we need “more clarification” till the cows come home, but there’s no way that’s an honest position.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

I’m seeing a link between the use of Latin in Holy Mass and the vernacular. The voice being an instrument reasons for the use of secular/sacred instruments could be very similarly framed.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m seeing a link between the use of Latin in Holy Mass and the vernacular. The voice being an instrument reasons for the use of secular/sacred instruments could be very similarly framed.

No, not necessarily. At this point, with all due respect, as I read your posts, you seem to be ignoring what the documents state and are, instead, grasping at straws. Not only have I quoted the documents, but, I have also included the citations from the footnotes attached to the section. As I see it, you have chosen to ignore these as well and try to connect the dots where no such connection is possible.

 

[chriso]

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:

It is NOT dealt with there, or other places as of yet. And the proper thing to do is wait in patience and humility, and see what Rome tells the Bishops here in the U.S. rather than take it upon ourselves to “self-interpret” the “self-define” accoding to our own personal wishes, lingering resentments, or animosities.

 

[chriso]

No, not necessarily. At this point, with all due respect, as I read your posts, you seem to be ignoring what the documents state and are, instead, grasping at straws. Not only have I quoted the documents, but, I have also included the citations from the footnotes attached to the section. As I see it, you have chosen to ignore these as well and try to connect the dots where no such connection is possible.

You keep quothing them, right up until the point where yous tart interpreting them and defining them, according to your personal likes and dislikes, rather than allowing us the right to wait upon Romes interpretations… and while its VERY CLEAR to me that you are more than happy to connect the dots for me and anyone else you can press your will upon, I prefer to wait upon Romes wisdom and connect them with that guidance myself thankyou.

 

[benedictgal]

It is NOT dealt with there, or other places as of yet. And the proper thing to do is wait in patience and humility, and see what Rome tells the Bishops here in the U.S. rather than take it upon ourselves to “self-interpret” the “self-define” accoding to our own personal wishes, lingering resentments, or animosities.

Actually, the clause on secular music should be enough proof that it is there. Rome does not have to be that specific. It is common knowledge, although many in this thread refuse to believe so, that electric guitars, electric bass guitars and drum kits are associated primarily with secular music, not with the sacred. You can only coat a sow’s lips so many times with red lipstick. She is not going to stop looking like a sow.

 

[chriso]

Can’t help but see this attitude as splitting hairs on the issue. Our bosses have actually told us a LOT about this. But are you really going to insist that before you pretend to know what they’re *really *saying you want it to be spelled out in technical terms with every single instrument you like specifically referred to? Why is that necessary? If you ask for that you’re admitting that you really don’t understand what is meant by the terms “popular” and “secular” music forms in the culture today and I don’t believe for a second that any of us don’t understand those terms.

It’s just not intellectually honest. It’s like saying, it doesn’t matter that there are mountains of documents showing *clearly *the kind of music the Holy See desires for the Mass, and what the Holy Father’s vision is for returning to a more traditional form of sacred music in all parishes; mountains of documents go from outright condemning secular music forms in the Mass to just warning that they aren’t the best and should be avoided, etc. To look at all of that and still say, “well guitars are ok because they’re not completely secular, they’re only ALMOST completely secular.” Is that really the best leg to stand on? And this is looking at ALL the documents about sacred liturgy, everything that the Holy Father has written and said as far as we know at least. NONE of it supports secular music forms and instruments in the liturgy. They all do the opposite.

Or sure, we can pretend that it’s still not clear enough and that we need “more clarification” till the cows come home, but there’s no way that’s an honest position.

Oh no, “honest” is qouthing exactly what the documents say, up unitl they fail to prove the point you are wanting to force upon others, then making up the rest to suit your purpose…

 

[moreorless]

Oh no, “honest” is qouthing exactly what the documents say, up unitl they fail to prove the point you are wanting to force upon others, then making up the rest to suit your purpose…

I know that the point of this thread has devolved into whether or not electric guitars and similar instruments are specifically and explicitly prohibited, but may I submit that this narrow focus misses a bigger question?

Yes, there is no document that explicitly and specifically prohibits the use of electric guitars at Mass. But, on balance, using the organ and singing chant are better choices. I do not say this because it is my personal opinion, or reflects my personal taste in music, or indicates some desire on my part to impose my preferences on others. I say that, 99% of the time, organ and chant are objectively better than electric guitar. I do not think that anyone who claims that the Church prefers guitars to the organ is reading the documents honestly. Does the church explicitly prohibit electric guitars? No. That doesn’t mean that everything is equal.

We have such a relativistic view of things like this. Our culture teaches us that one thing is as good as another. Our Holy Father urges us to fight this trend.

Similarly, the singing of the propers of the Mass is an objectively better choice than singing hymns. Again, I am not trying to impose my personal preferences – there are many hymns of which I am quite fond. But, since the propers are part of the Mass itself, and not mere accompaniment, they are fully integrated into the Mass and therefore the better choice.

Let’s not miss the forest for the trees. Are electric (or, in my mind, even acoustic) guitars prohibited? No. Is the singing of hymns and songs at Mass prohibited? No. Is there a better choice? Definitely.

 

[donr]

You keep quothing them, right up until the point where yous tart interpreting them and defining them, according to your personal likes and dislikes, rather than allowing us the right to wait upon Romes interpretations… and while its VERY CLEAR to me that you are more than happy to connect the dots for me and anyone else you can press your will upon, I prefer to wait upon Romes wisdom and connect them with that guidance myself thankyou.

So your point is that because the documents don’t specifically state a 1957 Statacastor Guitar with chorus and reverb that you are going take it upon yourself to “just do it” rather than knowing that the organ is held in high regard and trend toward that. The correct thing to do would be to gravitate toward the organ and then when the Church spells out that a 1957 Strat with effects is OK go ahead and use it.

God still loves you.

 

[chriso]

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.

I’m still not so sure Sara, I mean… lots of this was written prior to his becoming Pope and none of it has had the seal of infallability invoked. I mean, it clearly proves the righteousness of the Organ having its place of honor, but I still dont see it ruling out the use of other instruments entirely excepting those “only” used for secular purposes. I still presume when the document is released to the U.S. Bishops, some clarification will be forthcoming, and I still think its wrong for those who resent some of the presently used instruments such as guitars, to try forcing their wills and opinons upon the rest of us under the guise of “Rome said so”.

Like I’ve said, I love Organ music (I’ve even heard some “Sacred Music” played on the Organ…) I love Chant, I doubt it will ever go away, nor would I ever want it to. But I believe Sacred Music has been and will be, played on other instruments as well, which will be made apparent to us when the document is released to the U.S. Bishops.

 

[chriso]

I know that the point of this thread has devolved into whether or not electric guitars and similar instruments are specifically and explicitly prohibited, but may I submit that this narrow focus misses a bigger question?

Yes, there is no document that explicitly and specifically prohibits the use of electric guitars at Mass. But, on balance, using the organ and singing chant are better choices. I do not say this because it is my personal opinion, or reflects my personal taste in music, or indicates some desire on my part to impose my preferences on others. I say that, 99% of the time, organ and chant are objectively better than electric guitar. I do not think that anyone who claims that the Church prefers guitars to the organ is reading the documents honestly. Does the church explicitly prohibit electric guitars? No. That doesn’t mean that everything is equal.

We have such a relativistic view of things like this. Our culture teaches us that one thing is as good as another. Our Holy Father urges us to fight this trend.

Similarly, the singing of the propers of the Mass is an objectively better choice than singing hymns. Again, I am not trying to impose my personal preferences – there are many hymns of which I am quite fond. But, since the propers are part of the Mass itself, and not mere accompaniment, they are fully integrated into the Mass and therefore the better choice.

Let’s not miss the forest for the trees. Are electric (or, in my mind, even acoustic) guitars prohibited? No. Is the singing of hymns and songs at Mass prohibited? No. Is there a better choice? Definitely.

All very good… and for clarification in a reverse sort of way, should we use a poorly played organ or a well played guitar? I think we see the better choice there as well.

 

[chriso]

So your point is that because the documents don’t specifically state a 1957 Statacastor Guitar with chorus and reverb that you are going take it upon yourself to “just do it” rather than knowing that the organ is held in high regard and trend toward that. The correct thing to do would be to gravitate toward the organ and then when the Church spells out that a 1957 Strat with effects is OK go ahead and use it.

God still loves you.

Well… I humbly submit that just maybe… some of these stalwart proponets of forcing the issue by banning me and my guitar, ought to be the ones “trending towards that” rather than cutting off the arm before Rome even calls for it… “if” Rome ever does actually call for it…

Thanks for pointing out that God still loves me… he still loves even those who would act without heart or thought for others in their eagerness to make up for their real and imagined wrongs they’ve suffered at the hands of others.

Bear in mind please, I’ve been persecuted by extreme. liberal, modernists for decades here and have long been occupied in an “apologist” role as well. I’m not the enemy… the enemy in fact, lies within in many cases.

 

[ibkc]

I find it interesting to think the original accompaniment to the Psalms was David’s stringed instrument, the forerunner of the modern day guitar.

Whatever David’s exact stringed instrument was, it would have been a member of the extended harp family. The guitar, and instruments similar to the guitar, are relatively recent innovations. Even if there were a few harps that were superficially similar to modern guitars in the ancient world, it’s a given that King David didn’t crank out power chords through Marshall stacks.

 

[chriso]

Still, when I read the documents quothed so far I hear more of a description of the way we should be choosing and playing music and of the special place the organ and chant should hold in the grand scheme of things. It could be that for the time being, the “HI MASSES” would receive priority for pulling out all the stops and finding a quality organist… it would certainly seem appropriate anyway. I think once they release the recommendations to the U.S. Bishops those kind of specific recommendations are more along the lines of what one will see spelled out, rather than ultimatum about unilaterally outlawing an electric guitar.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Are the V2 documents dogma we are obligated to follow? Or suggestions of how structure may be applied?
Some of what was agreed to at the time seems to have been ignored at the present.
We have a Church in tension - liberal v. traditional.

Perhaps it may be said of 21st century CC, “We are on the right road to improvement because we are making experiments” (Benjamin Franklin)

 

[Sarabande]

I’m still not so sure Sara, I mean… lots of this was written prior to his becoming Pope and none of it has had the seal of infallability invoked. I mean, it clearly proves the righteousness of the Organ having its place of honor, but I still dont see it ruling out the use of other instruments entirely excepting those “only” used for secular purposes. I still presume when the document is released to the U.S. Bishops, some clarification will be forthcoming, and I still think its wrong for those who resent some of the presently used instruments such as guitars, to try forcing their wills and opinons upon the rest of us under the guise of “Rome said so”.

Like I’ve said, I love Organ music (I’ve even heard some “Sacred Music” played on the Organ…) I love Chant, I doubt it will ever go away, nor would I ever want it to. But I believe Sacred Music has been and will be, played on other instruments as well, which will be made apparent to us when the document is released to the U.S. Bishops.

Hey Chriso

I just wrote a post and lost it, so I’ll try to do this again. I actually wasn’t posting the Pope’s sacred music history lecture to say that no other instruments should be permitted at mass. My reason for posting it was prompted by a poster asking, “What justification do we have for the organ?” When the poster later wrote that the reason why the organ was brought in to help with congregational singing, I had wanted to clarify that this was not the actual case and explained it in those two posts, using the Pope’s article/lecture. It also explained how the organ was employed to separate the Church’s way of worship/music from that of the Jewish faith, thus explaining why for so long only the organ and chant was allowed for liturgy.

I’m not a purist - meaning someone who believes only chant is permitted. I love the fact that the Church has permitted the organic development of sacred music. She has always dealt with reigning in musicians/composers throughout the centuries and just always insisted that people refined/adapted their composition or way of “performing” so that it sounds less “secular” and more “sacred”. I believe that if it can be done (and it has) with the proper reverence for mass, then of course, it could be permitted. When an instrumentalist or a composer does nothing to refine the way they play an instrument or compose, then it isn’t following along the lines of what the Church asks for. My continual example, because I am a classically trained singer/musician, is that just because I’m an opera singer doesn’t mean I should sing like an opera singer at mass. I need to refine the way I sing from chanting to singing more classical sacred compositions or just the simple, yet beautiful hymn. And the same needs to be done for other instruments if they are to be used at mass.

 

[ac_claire]

It is NOT dealt with there, or other places as of yet. And the proper thing to do is wait in patience and humility, and see what Rome tells the Bishops here in the U.S. rather than take it upon ourselves to “self-interpret” the “self-define” accoding to our own personal wishes, lingering resentments, or animosities.

dude, Rome *has already spoken *about it!! Choosing to be obtuse about it doesn’t change that! The instructions that you’re “waiting in patience and humility” for have been given.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Hey Chriso

I just wrote a post and lost it, so I’ll try to do this again. I actually wasn’t posting the Pope’s sacred music history lecture to say that no other instruments should be permitted at mass. My reason for posting it was prompted by a poster asking, “What justification do we have for the organ?” When the poster later wrote that the reason why the organ was brought in to help with congregational singing, I had wanted to clarify that this was not the actual case and explained it in those two posts, using the Pope’s article/lecture. It also explained how the organ was employed to separate the Church’s way of worship/music from that of the Jewish faith, thus explaining why for so long only the organ and chant was allowed for liturgy.

It also explained how through use of the organ the Pope could be seen as a both a spiritual and a temporal emperor: A man who undertakes the management of our spiritual affairs as a method of bettering his temporal ones. Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.

 

[pnewton]

Can’t help but see this attitude as splitting hairs on the issue. … If you ask for that you’re admitting that you really don’t understand what is meant by the terms “popular” and “secular” music forms in the culture today and I don’t believe for a second that any of us don’t understand those terms.

It’s just not intellectually honest…Or sure, we can pretend that it’s still not clear enough and that we need “more clarification” till the cows come home, but there’s no way that’s an honest position.

Intellectual honest means considering everything, not just what is convenient. I know both the literal meanint of the word “secular” and the meaning of the word “only”. If I fail to “split hairs” as you put it, then I would be intellectual dishonest as I focused on what the document should say, not what it actually says.

 

[Sarabande]

It also explained how through use of the organ the Pope could be seen as a both a spiritual and a temporal emperor: A man who undertakes the management of our spiritual affairs as a method of bettering his temporal ones. Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.

Yes, I’m glad you read it. It’s a wonderful article, isn’t it?