SPLIT: Musical instruments at Mass

[benedictgal]

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.

i would not be too quick to discount what he wrote before he became pope, as Benedict’s opinion has not changed one iota since he assumed the Chair of St. Peter. In fact, when he blessed an organ at Regensberg during his Papal trip to Bavaria, he said this:

In the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council (Sacrosanctum Concilium), it is emphasized that the “combination of sacred music and words … forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy” (No. 112). This means that music and song are more than an embellishment (perhaps even unnecessary) of worship; they are themselves part of the liturgical action. Solemn sacred music, with choir, organ, orchestra and the singing of the people, is not therefore a kind of addition that frames the liturgy and makes it more pleasing, but an important means of active participation in worship. The organ has always been considered, and rightly so, the king of musical instruments, because it takes up all the sounds of creation – as was just said - and gives resonance to the fullness of human sentiments, from joy to sadness, from praise to lamentation. By transcending the merely human sphere, as all music of quality does, it evokes the divine. The organ’s great range of timbre, from piano through to a thundering fortissimo, makes it an instrument superior to all others. It is capable of echoing and expressing all the experiences of human life. The manifold possibilities of the organ in some way remind us of the immensity and the magnificence of God.

This is consistent with what he has written, and this speech dates back to 2006, roughly a year after he was elected Pope.

Furthermore, what I believe, you and the other proponents of electric guitars, electric bass guitars and drum kits, do not seem to realize (or want to acknowledge) is the primary association of these instruments with secular instruments. The common opinoin associates these instruments with a rock/pop concert, not with sacred music.

 

[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.

I’ve been caring for a 6 week old newborn, so I didn’t have a chance to complete my thought process due to feeding and playing with my little one…

In short, I actually don’t view this idea of the Pope being both a spiritual and temporal emperor necessarily a bad thing, especially during that time period. Benedict does state that the organ has been part of a “theo-political” history. At that point, the Church wanted to show that not only was she equal, but superior to all secular rule and its rulers. In a time when Christian lands did look to the Church for guidance in spiritual and secular matters, it made sense. Now that didn’t mean people within both the secular and papal States could have been corrupt (and it is definitely true that this was the case on both sides for certain political and spiritual leaders/rulers) and used this to their advantage.

But, anyway, I find all of this history fascinating. For me, learning more about it helps one understand the thought processes behind why and how these documents were created and even more so how and why the Church grew and evolved through the centuries. It proves that the Church was never stagnant, but also knew how to build upon her faith foundation and traditions without throwing it all away for the sake of being “with the times”.

I sound like a broken record, but we musicians need to learn how to adapt/refine our instruments/compositions for liturgy. Many do, and I’m thinking that most on this thread do their best to follow along with that. But, unfortunately, there are many who don’t - either because they don’t realize they should (I’ve attended mass where the cantor had a great operatic voice, but didn’t tone it down - she might as well had been singing Tosca and it’s my guess no one took the time to instruct her on it - but that is what gives classically trained singers a bad name for use in the liturgy. People automatically think they are “performing” - thus turning it into something commonly thought of as secular rather than sacred), don’t know how to or refuse to adapt their voices/instruments for mass.

 

[chriso]

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.

Again, ACTUALLY (TRUTHFULLY) it has not… Rome is still reviewing the U.S. Bishops proposal about how they will handle and meet up the these priorities… when that response comes, then we will know how we are to proceed.

But, we could continue to spread untrue intepretations of whats been published so far skewed to represent our personal views and attempt to entrench our positions and pretend we’re being honest and faithful all we want… I’ll wait on Romes forthcoming response…

 

[benedictgal]

Again, ACTUALLY (TRUTHFULLY) it has not… Rome is still reviewing the U.S. Bishops proposal about how they will handle and meet up the these priorities… when that response comes, then we will know how we are to proceed.

But, we could continue to spread untrue intepretations of whats been published so far skewed to represent our personal views and attempt to entrench our positions and pretend we’re being honest and faithful all we want… I’ll wait on Romes forthcoming response…

Rome has indeed spoken through Musicam Sacram. Secular use means just what it says. The electric guitar, electric bass and the drum kits are primarily associated with secular music (rock, country, pop). It does not take much to connect those dots.

 

[chriso]

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.

I know your heart (at least to some small degree anyway) and have the utmost repsect for your judgement and objectivity. You ARE one of those with wisdom. I was just pointing out to some of the others posting on this topic that while this history and statements are very indicative of the desire to ensure a place of honor for chant and the organ, these recommendations are not so highly placed as to have had the seal of infallability invoked nor has Rome actually declared the other forms of sacred music to be outlawed. I wish you were here in alaska to lead our music, for I have seen those who having the kind of training you have, have taken their organ playing or classical skillset over the top as well, in a similar standpoint as so many out there (and rightfully so) resent the musicians over the top applications of their uses of these other instruments. But, like the relationship between sins and sinner… (hate the sin, not the sinner) and guitars and missplayed or poorly chosen music… (hate the poorly played or chosen music, not the guitar)

Anyway, I hope it didnt come across that I was objecting in any way to your post, I was using it to illustrate my point as well as yours. I agree wholeheartedly that the Organ and Chant should (and do, in my world anyway) occupy the place of highest honor in sacred music. I just think its plain silly to watch and read as others scamper feverishily to over interpret stuff when they know Rome is about to respond to our Bishops suggestions as to how we are supposed to adhere to these guidelines.

 

[chriso]

Rome has indeed spoken through Musicam Sacram. Secular use means just what it says. The electric guitar, electric bass and the drum kits are primarily associated with secular music (rock, country, pop). It does not take much to connect those dots.

As long as you keep inserting your word “primarily” or “commonly” or any other form than what is truly written in the Sacram… “commonly ONLY”… I will continue to point out that you are presuming to insert your words in place of Romes… I doesnt take much to connect these dots either.

 

[chriso]

i would not be too quick to discount what he wrote before he became pope, as Benedict’s opinion has not changed one iota since he assumed the Chair of St. Peter.

He also has an opinion that global warming is real too… doesnt mean that you can tell me he’s ordered me to stop driving though…

 

[benedictgal]

He also has an opinion that global warming is real too… doesnt mean that you can tell me he’s ordered me to stop driving though…

There is no need for sarcasm, chriso. The Holy Father’s opinion is consistent with that of the liturgical documents. Really, with all due respect, Musicam Sacram specifically states that if an instrument is used secularly, then, it is not fit for use in the liturgy. You keep ignoring what Musicam Sacram says, and, as I read your posts, not even looking at the footnote. The dots are there, but, with all due respect, you are unwilling to see the connection.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Rome has indeed spoken through Musicam Sacram. Secular use means just what it says. The electric guitar, electric bass and the drum kits are primarily associated with secular music (rock, country, pop). It does not take much to connect those dots.

The encyclical *‘Musicam Sacram’ *indicates that Rome associates “the electric guitar, electric bass and drum kits are primarily …with secular music (rock, country, pop)”

What dots are we to connect? Those that indicate rock, country, pop are devil-worship?
Or that Rome wants to centralize preference in music around that which Rome thinks fitting?
Is it about music or who has rightful authority?
Once again attempting pyramid hierarchy of power rather than of function which was challenged in V2?

 

[benedictgal]

The encyclical *‘Musicam Sacram’ *indicates that Rome associates “the electric guitar, electric bass and drum kits are primarily …with secular music (rock, country, pop)”

What dots are we to connect? Those that indicate rock, country, pop are devil-worship?
Or that Rome wants to centralize preference in music around that which Rome thinks fitting?
Is it about music or who has rightful authority?
Once again attempting pyramid hierarchy of power rather than of function which was challenged in V2?

Actually, Kevin, Musicam Sacram is not an encyclical. It is an authoritative, legislative document that governs music in the liturgy. It never ceases to amaze me that, with all due respect, there are those who stubbornly maintain that electric guitars, electric bass guitars and drum kits are suitable for sacred music when their primarily association is with secular music.

Again, these instruments are used for the rock, pop, Tejano, jazz, country, metal, R&B, rap and hip-hop genre. None of these qualifies as sacred music. All of these genres are secular.

 

[chriso]

There is no need for sarcasm, chriso. The Holy Father’s opinion is consistent with that of the liturgical documents. Really, with all due respect, **Musicam Sacram specifically states that if an instrument is used secularly, then, it is not fit for use in the liturgy. ** You keep ignoring what Musicam Sacram says, and, as I read your posts, not even looking at the footnote. The dots are there, but, with all due respect, you are unwilling to see the connection.

Again, you quothe, but then you paraphrase to suit your purposes… yet your own interpretation can equally be used to negate your statements… if it REALLY says “if an instrument is used secularly… then it is not fit for use in liturgy” then it would in fact rule out the use of organs as well… since they too, are used for secular purposes.

 

[agapewolf]

I challenge the idea that a genre can be secular.

Genres, in general, I think are neutral.

 

[chriso]

There is no need for sarcasm, chriso. The Holy Father’s opinion is consistent with that of the liturgical documents. Really, with all due respect, Musicam Sacram specifically states that if an instrument is used secularly, then, it is not fit for use in the liturgy. You keep ignoring what Musicam Sacram says, and, as I read your posts, not even looking at the footnote. The dots are there, but, with all due respect, you are unwilling to see the connection.

No sarcasm intended, but the comparison to your connection of the dots isnt very far removed. As far as ignoring things, or not looking at footnotes, none are really needed for thinking people to see that you contradict your own words in your posts and your choices for quothes. I’d love to discuss with you at length what you “think” will prove to be Romes further definitions and clarifications, and what you “think” Romes response will be to the U.S. Bishops… but when you insist on changing certain terms and exagerating them to the fullest possible extent, no reasonable discussion can take place. Funny thing is, as I’ve pointed out earlier, for all my life, I’ve been one of those who stood the line against these very same forces which so obviously you are still angry with for enacting these modernist changes. I’m just of the opinion that the pendulum doesnt need to swing to the extreme on the other side to make it right by you and those whose hearing has been offended.

 

[benedictgal]

I challenge the idea that a genre can be secular.

Genres, in general, I think are neutral.

However, what you and the supporters of these instruments fail to see is that their association is primarily secular. It’s as though those of you who support these instruments are completely ignoring the authoritative documents and the writings of the popes.

With all due respect, agapewolf, most of the P&W has a beat to it and sounds no different than what you hear on a secular station. All that is changed are the lyrics. It is still the pop/rock genre with a Christian spin. It may be religious music, but, it’s not sacred music.

On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. “Rock”, on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit’s sober inebriation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments.

Even though he was writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict certainly pulled no punches. Furthermore, you have admitted in several posts that you have a LifeTeen band. The genre that the band plays (using electric guitars, drums and electric bass guitars) is primarily P&W which employs the rock/pop genre. Both the instruments and the genre are completely incompatible with the sacred nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Even the Venerable Pope John Paul II stated that today’s music stands in need of purification. Are you going to dismiss that as well?

You also ignore the valid concerns that the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist noted when they stated that there were issues with the kind of music used at Youth Masses. If chant and the organ were employed at these Masses, I seriously doubt that there would have been a problem.

Please show us documentation from the CDWDS that authorizes LifeTeen or any other group to use these instruments during the Mass. A simple manual does not have the same force of law that authoritative documents of the Church have. The interpretations of the Popes clearly have a different viewpoint than what you and the supporters of this genre have. But, it seems to me that you are choosing to ingore them and go on feelings and what sounds good, as opposed to what the Church has stated.

 

[benedictgal]

No sarcasm intended, but the comparison to your connection of the dots isnt very far removed. As far as ignoring things, or not looking at footnotes, none are really needed for thinking people to see that you contradict your own words in your posts and your choices for quothes. I’d love to discuss with you at length what you “think” will prove to be Romes further definitions and clarifications, and what you “think” Romes response will be to the U.S. Bishops… but when you insist on changing certain terms and exagerating them to the fullest possible extent, no reasonable discussion can take place. Funny thing is, as I’ve pointed out earlier, for all my life, I’ve been one of those who stood the line against these very same forces which so obviously you are still angry with for enacting these modernist changes. I’m just of the opinion that the pendulum doesnt need to swing to the extreme on the other side to make it right by you and those whose hearing has been offended.

However, you are not seeing the connection because, as I read your posts, you do not want to see the connection. It is quite clear. Furthermore, the citations back up what I have been saying. The writings of the Popes also confirm what I have been saying.

The problem is that there are folks, both here in these forums and elsewhere, who merely want to go with what feels good as opposed to what the Church has already stated. Rome has already stated what kind of instruments should be used. The Popes, including the venerable Pope John Paul II (who stated that even the music used today stands in need of purification), have made their statements. There is no inconsitency in what I have written. There are those who simply do not want to admit that perhaps they are wrong.

 

[agapewolf]

However, what you and the supporters of these instruments fail to see is that their association is primarily secular. It’s as though those of you who support these instruments are completely ignoring the authoritative documents and the writings of the popes.

With all due respect, agapewolf, most of the P&W has a beat to it and sounds no different than what you hear on a secular station. All that is changed are the lyrics. It is still the pop/rock genre with a Christian spin. It may be religious music, but, it’s not sacred music.

DO NOT group me with others here, I have purposely not participated in this discussion because I find them fruitless. I was challenging ONE POINT and one point only.

Sorry, but your 2nd sentence makes no sense. Has a beat to it? EVERY song has a beat, except for chant, and even chant has some bit of rhythm, although its not an even meter.

Again, I challenge the fact that a genre in and of itself is secular. A lot of p & w does sound different than what you would hear on a secular station

 

[benedictgal]

DO NOT group me with others here, I have purposely not participated in this discussion because I find them fruitless. I was challenging ONE POINT and one point only.

Sorry, but your 2nd sentence makes no sense. Has a beat to it? EVERY song has a beat, except for chant, and even chant has some bit of rhythm, although its not an even meter.

Again, I challenge the fact that a genre in and of itself is secular. A lot of p & w does sound different than what you would hear on a secular station

No, it does not agapewolf, It is the same stuff you hear on a pop/soft rock radio station. The only thing that is different is the fact that the lyrics are of a religious nature.

Again, you have yet to answer my question regarding what the Fathers of the 2005 Synod brought concerning music used at these Youth Masses. Again, if they had been using genuinely sacred music (chant and organ), the Synod Fathers would have not made an issue of it.

The fact remains, whether you choose to admit this or not, P&W is really pop/soft rock with religious undertones to it. There is a huge difference between religious music and sacred music.

 

[agapewolf]

No, it does not agapewolf, It is the same stuff you hear on a pop/soft rock radio station. The only thing that is different is the fact that the lyrics are of a religious nature.

Again, you have yet to answer my question regarding what the Fathers of the 2005 Synod brought concerning music used at these Youth Masses. Again, if they had been using genuinely sacred music (chant and organ), the Synod Fathers would have not made an issue of it.

The fact remains, whether you choose to admit this or not, P&W is really pop/soft rock with religious undertones to it. There is a huge difference between religious music and sacred music.

Actually, it does sound different. Want to go 5 more rounds? have at it. A LOT of it is different. THe smooth melody lines, repetition mantras/chant type lines, ostinatos, these are used in p/w, but NOT often used in pop/rock. The genre term “rock” covers from a soft ballad to megadeth, but they are too completely different genres really.

I have to answer no such thing, again, do NOT group me in the other discussion. I still challenge my point, that a genre is not secular in itself, it is neutral.

Stop trying to argue points with me that I’m not arguing or bringing up, or without proper terminology. This discussion if fruitless, just like always.

 

[Looking_back]

I like to think that the music helps deliver the message, and if different kinds of music allow the message to reach a greater number of people, that’s wonderful. the danger is when the music overwhelms the message. My husbands church has to services, once is traditional with a booming pipe organ or piano and choir…sometimes with flutes, strings, or brass.They usually sing and play a half hour before and up to a half hour after the service. On Easter and Palm Sunday it’s almost like going to see the symphony. The other has only one acoustic guitar. Both are lovely, but they draw very different crowds. From time to time we’ll also have special music that is always a delight and usually a surprise.

 

[benedictgal]

Actually, it does sound different. Want to go 5 more rounds? have at it. A LOT of it is different. THe smooth melody lines, repetition mantras/chant type lines, ostinatos, these are used in p/w, but NOT often used in pop/rock. The genre term “rock” covers from a soft ballad to megadeth, but they are too completely different genres really.

I have to answer no such thing, again, do NOT group me in the other discussion. I still challenge my point, that a genre is not secular in itself, it is neutral.

Stop trying to argue points with me that I’m not arguing or bringing up, or without proper terminology. This discussion if fruitless, just like always.

Agape, it all sounds the same. You can only put makeup on a sow so many times. The sow can have a whole rainbow of lipsticks, but, in the final analysis, she is still going to look the same. The same concept holds true for P&W music. It is still the pop/soft rock genre. You were the one who said that "genre was netural’. It is not . P&W is merely pop/soft rock masquerading as something religious. It is not suitable for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass nor are the instruments used for it.

But, my question is sitll valid. If the Synod Fathers held your opiinion, then, why would they have raised the issue and why did they specifically refer to Youth Masses? Or, are you trying to tell me that your band is now using the organ and chanting?

These are valid questions. You came in to post about genre. I am asking you a question, a question that you have yet to answer. It is also a fair question.