The bickering stops here

[Lycoming]

benedictgal, yes.

You’ve asked the question before, and I have answered, “Yes, I have read the documents.”

I have made a very informed choice.

I felt that as a church musician (pianist) it was my duty to read as many of the documents as I could find about church music. So two years ago, when I was laid up with my first foot surgery, I spend quite a few hours studying over many of the documents that you cite.

I’ll admit that I haven’t been able to read Pope Benedict XVI’s writings because I do not understand them. They are written in true German style, with long, convoluted sentences, and I find that at the end of each sentence, I have no idea what I have just read. So I’ve given up, and I’m waiting for “popular” writers to write “translations” for the ignorant Americans like me who aren’t used to lofty language!

I’m probably not nearly as smart as you.

The fact remains that after I read the documents, I rejoiced, because I interpreted them this way: many different musical styles, including styles of the popular culture, are appropriate for Mass, as well as different instruments. Strictly secular music, or music that is popularly understood as purely secular, is NOT appropriate for the Mass.

What this means to me is that a song like Sandy Patti’s “We Shall Behold Him” is very appropriate for Mass (especially Advent Mass), while a song like “Let It Be” is not appropriate for Mass.

I wasn’t exactly sure what the statements about chant receiving a certain place of honor in the Mass meant, but when I compared this statement with all the rest of the documents, I did NOT conclude that chant was the only music that deserved a place in the Mass.

My interpretation was totally different than yours.

And I believe that this is why neither you nor I have a “right” to state as fact that certain songs or styles are not appropriate.

We have not been given that responsibility by the Church, therefore, I believe that we don’t have the charism to be able to do that job correctly.

It is up to the bishop and his priests, who HAVE been given the charism. The fact that they come to different conclusions than you or I does not make them wrong and us right.

A priest who has pronounced the hymns in the OCP as “good” is not “wrong” or “lacking.”

benedictgal, if you are in a position of liturgical authority in your diocese or in your parish, then I believe that you have been given a portion of that charism, and you are qualified to interpret the documents, at least in your diocese or your parish .

But if you are just another layperson, a musical one, but just a layperson, then you (and I) really don’t have the right to express our opinions as “obvious facts.” We need to submit to the authority of the bishops and priests who are allowing the “inappropriate” songs in their Masses, and stop condemning their choices. This undermines their authority, and places us in a position of authority that we do not merit.

We as laypeople are free to hold opinions about the interpretations of the documents. But to present them as “obvious truth” is simply wrong.

And frankly, doesn’t it bother you that most of the bishops and priests in the U.S. would disagree with your interpretation of the various documents when it comes to music in the Mass? I frankly am a little inclined to side with the clergy here, and if I hold an opinion that is very different than the majority of extremely educated and ordained people, I will conclude that my opinion is probably not totally correct.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong about all this.

What an awesome post #3!

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal, yes.

You’ve asked the question before, and I have answered, “Yes, I have read the documents.”

I have made a very informed choice.

I felt that as a church musician (pianist) it was my duty to read as many of the documents as I could find about church music. So two years ago, when I was laid up with my first foot surgery, I spend quite a few hours studying over many of the documents that you cite.

I’ll admit that I haven’t been able to read Pope Benedict XVI’s writings because I do not understand them. They are written in true German style, with long, convoluted sentences, and I find that at the end of each sentence, I have no idea what I have just read. So I’ve given up, and I’m waiting for “popular” writers to write “translations” for the ignorant Americans like me who aren’t used to lofty language!

I’m probably not nearly as smart as you.

The fact remains that after I read the documents, I rejoiced, because I interpreted them this way: many different musical styles, including styles of the popular culture, are appropriate for Mass, as well as different instruments. Strictly secular music, or music that is popularly understood as purely secular, is NOT appropriate for the Mass.

What this means to me is that a song like Sandy Patti’s “We Shall Behold Him” is very appropriate for Mass (especially Advent Mass), while a song like “Let It Be” is not appropriate for Mass.

I wasn’t exactly sure what the statements about chant receiving a certain place of honor in the Mass meant, but when I compared this statement with all the rest of the documents, I did NOT conclude that chant was the only music that deserved a place in the Mass.

My interpretation was totally different than yours.

And I believe that this is why neither you nor I have a “right” to state as fact that certain songs or styles are not appropriate.

We have not been given that responsibility by the Church, therefore, I believe that we don’t have the charism to be able to do that job correctly.

It is up to the bishop and his priests, who HAVE been given the charism. The fact that they come to different conclusions than you or I does not make them wrong and us right.

A priest who has pronounced the hymns in the OCP as “good” is not “wrong” or “lacking.”

benedictgal, if you are in a position of liturgical authority in your diocese or in your parish, then I believe that you have been given a portion of that charism, and you are qualified to interpret the documents, at least in your diocese or your parish .

But if you are just another layperson, a musical one, but just a layperson, then you (and I) really don’t have the right to express our opinions as “obvious facts.” We need to submit to the authority of the bishops and priests who are allowing the “inappropriate” songs in their Masses, and stop condemning their choices. This undermines their authority, and places us in a position of authority that we do not merit.

We as laypeople are free to hold opinions about the interpretations of the documents. But to present them as “obvious truth” is simply wrong.

And frankly, doesn’t it bother you that most of the bishops and priests in the U.S. would disagree with your interpretation of the various documents when it comes to music in the Mass? I frankly am a little inclined to side with the clergy here, and if I hold an opinion that is very different than the majority of extremely educated and ordained people, I will conclude that my opinion is probably not totally correct.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong about all this.

I am curious as to just which of these documents you read. While the USCCB has published musical documents, these are not authoritative since they do not have the necesary recognitio of the Holy See. These include Music in Catholic Worship and now Sing to the Lord. These are merely opinions and do not carry the weight of Musicam Sacram and the other documents.

To say that the Holy Father’s writing style is convulted is a misnomer. The English translation is not quite as bad as you may seem to believe that it is. Furthermore, the Holy Father writes as someone who was an authentic witness to what actually happened at the Second Vatican Council because he was there. Unfortunately, a lot fo the music that was written after the council was done in the spirit of Vatican II rather than following the guidelines established by that council. Half of what people say Vatican II did, the council never even considered.

Furthermore, the Holy Father’s writings, whether they came from the Ratzinger era or the Benedictine one, come from a truly authoritative position. He is probably more aware of the problems with music today than anyone. Even as Cardinal Ratzinger, he traveled around the world and witnessed a great deal of things, some good, some not so good. He even had to endure bad music during the Papal Mass at Nationals Stadium.

It is not a matter of questioning authority. It is a matter of making a sound judgment based on what the authoritative documents say. Furthermore, if you are the one who is selecting the music for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, then the burden falls on you to ensure that this music meets with what the Church demands.

Incidentally, there are some parishes who blindly follow the OCP planning guide as though it were some authoritative document of the Church, which it is not. In fact, the planning guide only serves to promote OCP’s stable of composers. You will not find very many, if any, genuinely sacred hymns in there. Whatever hymns there are, OCP has made sure to water them down to use inclusive language and other novelties. OCP does not have any ecclesial authority to impose its will on unsuspecting consumers.

Where, for example, do you find justification for the use of electric guitars, drums, bass guitars, keyboards and other things? Where in the authoritative documents of the Holy See do you find justification for CCM? Please cite those examples based on what you have read.

 

[LighthouseRon]

Where, for example, do you find justification for the use of electric guitars, drums, bass guitars, keyboards and other things? Where in the authoritative documents of the Holy See do you find justification for CCM? Please cite those examples based on what you have read.

Just wondering, doesn’t a pipe organ have a keyboard?

 

[JReducation]

JR,
The Orans posture is a priestly gesture in which the celebrant raises his hands in prayer. I think it is part of the instructions to the celebrant printed in red in the Missal. Nowhere do we find that the laiety is to use this action in response to Dominus vobiscum/The Lord be with you, or at the Doxology–recited after the Our Father “for thine is the kingdom, the power…”, nor in response to the final blessing or the dismissal. Or anywhere else in the Mass.

Thanks for the translation. I know the posture that you’re talking about. I had never called it that. We use that in our LIturgy of the Hours when the guardian prays the blessing over the brothers. We just call it extended arms. But it is only used if the guardian is a priest. Otherwise, the guardian extends his arms over the head of the brothers.

Live and learn. I knew I could learn some new vocab on CAF. Thanks.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[benedictgal]

Just wondering, doesn’t a pipe organ have a keyboard?

Keyboards in this case would mean something like the synthesizer that Duran Duran, A Flock of Seagus and Van Halen use.

 

[Lycoming]

Just wondering, doesn’t a pipe organ have a keyboard?

“Keyboards” (synthesizers) can even be programmed to play as pipe organs. Eddie Van Halen used a Oberheim OB-Xa synthesizer on the song “Jump” and I’m absolutely certain it can be set-up to emulate a pipe organ.

I have also never read a specific prohibition from the Church on electric guitars/basses either or even drums. No one here is the arbiter of what is a “purely secular” instrument. and nobody had better tell the Geez Catholics they cannot use drums in their liturgies.

I think a great deal has to do with how they are played and the type of music being played. Last Christmas the husband of our pianist and his friend backed-up the pianist with an electric guitar and bass. Nothing but soft, subtle, gentle fills. All it did was make the music sound fuller and a bit more robust. For those that could not see what was going on, there wouldn’t have been a problem. Yet I’m sure there were a few who were angry because they were watching the musicians with images of Church documents and their personal interpretations dancing in their heads.

 

[benedictgal]

I think “keyboards” (synthesizers) can even be programmed to play as pipe organs? I have never read a specific prohibition from the Church on electric guitars/basses either or even drums. Nobody had better tell the Geez Catholics they cannot use drums in their liturgies.

I think a great deal has to do with how they are played and the type of music being played. Last Christmas the husband of our pianist and his friend backed-up the pianist with an electric guitar and bass. Nothing but soft, subtle, gentle fills. All it did was make the music sound fuller and a bit more robust. For those that could not see what was going on, there wouldn’t have been a problem. Yet I’m sure there were a few who were angry because they were watching the musicians with images of Church documents and their personal interpretations dancing in their heads.

Have you read Musicam Sacram? Before you start discounting things and claiming that just about anything can be used for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, please note what this document says:

The pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, since it is its traditional instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lift up men’s minds to God and higher things.

"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."43

1. 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.**44

Any musical instrument permitted in divine worship should be used in such a way that it meets the needs of the liturgical celebration, and is in the interests both of the beauty of worship and the edification of the faithful.

So then, section 63 pretty much wipes out the synthesizers (also referred to as keyboards), drum kits, electric guitars and bass guitars since these are suitable secular music and not for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Furthermore, while there will be some who note that the Protestants use these, we should remember that we have the complete form of worship. Unlike Protestant ecclesial communities who have only the Word, we have both the Word and the Sacrifice.

Something else to note is that even Pope John Paul II noted that today’s music stands in need of purification. He echoed the words of Pope Paul VI when he wrote in his Chirograph on Sacred Music that

1. On several occasions I have also recalled the valuable function and the great importance of music and of song for more active and intense participation at liturgical celebrations, and I have emphasized the necessity to “purify worship from ugliness of style, from distasteful forms of expression, from uninspired musical texts which are not worthy of the great act that is being celebrated”, in order to ensure dignity and integrity of forms to liturgical music.

With such a perspective, in light of the teachings of Saint Pius X and of my other Predecessors, and particularly taking into account the pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council, I desire to propose again some fundamental principles for this important sector of the life of the Church, with the intention of seeing to it that liturgical music corresponds more and more to its specific function.

1. In following the course of the teachings of Saint Pius X and of the Second Vatican Council, it is above all necessary to emphasize that music destined for the sacred rites must have as its point of reference sanctity: it in fact “will be the more holy the more closely it is united to the liturgical action”. Precisely because of this, “not all that which stands outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross the threshold”, sagely affirmed my venerated Predecessor Paul VI, commenting upon a decree of the Council of Trent and clarified that “if it does not at once possess the sense of prayer, of dignity and beauty, music – instrumental and vocal – by this fact is precluded from admission into the sacred and religious realm”.

On the other hand, the category of “sacred music” today has undergone such a broadening of meaning as to include repertoire that cannot enter into the celebration without violating the spirit and the norms of the Liturgy itself.

I am curious, and this is a fair question to ask: what is your experience in planning liturgies? Have you read all of the authoritative documents of the Holy See regarding Sacred Music?

 

[JReducation]

JR, glad to see you back on CAF, and I pray that your sickness will be brief and you will feel rested and strong soon.

See the boldface above. I have a very hard time with this in regards to Mass-appropriate music. Several posters on CAF continue to try to convince me and others that according to the “documents,” many of the songs that we currently sing in OF Mass are inappropriate and don’t have a sense of the faith. They make a claim that certain styles of music are inappropriate for Mass. And some posters even claim that instruments other than the pipe organ are inappropriate.

I can hear the discomfort in your statement. I can understand that discomfort. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to be dogmatic when they speak. Their language is often lacking in charity and gentleness.

We can’t go around telling people that they are wrong. First, it’s a useless task. The more you tell people that they are wrong, the more they will fight back and become defensive. Often, people don’t realize this and they come off as patronizing or condescending when they are trying to share something good.

I don’t think the “documents” are clear-cut at all.

Most documents on liturgy try to address the liturgy in broad strokes, leaving room for the local espiscopal conferences to make prudential judgments for their nations and dioceses. There are some things that are not allowed. When they are not allowed, the documents will spell them out very clearly. There are other things that are encouraged, but are not law. Some of the statements made by the Holy Father during his Ratzinger days and his papal days are commentaries and reflections. They are food for thought and consideration in planning good liturgy that reflects the mystery of the cross.

". . . the authority for approving Mass music rests with the bishop,

For a diocese the local bishop is the final authority on liturgy and he is ultimately responsible. He is the person to whom the laity and others should go to if they cannot get a clear answer from their local pastor.

For a religioius house, the superior is the final authority.

Above those two is the Holy See.

Since I play piano in Mass, I get very upset with these threads about Church music. It really bothers me to sit and play and know that there is probably someone out there who is fuming and thinking, “Lounge lizardress!”

Let me stop you right here. Your job is to play so that the congregation can join in the worship of God. If others sit there and make judgments about the music, that is their problem. If a person has enough time to think about this, instead of adoring and worshipping God during the mass, there is more going on with them than with your playing. I would not be second guessing myself. I can’t see the benefit of second guessing oneself.

when posters on this board are telling me that most of the songs that I am playing are hated by Pope Benedict XVI and that it’s only a matter of time before they are ousted.

How do they know?

It make me doubt the wisdom and intelligence of our bishop (Thomas Doran) and his priests–I wonder how it is that THEY haven’t figured out the same inadequacies in the music that these CAF posters have figured out. I wonder if they have figured it out, why they don’t put a stop to the inappropriate music in our diocese.

Now you’re letting others plant seeds of doubt in your mind. This is not good. If this is what CAF is doing to you, it may be time to pull away for a while or stay out of these threads. We always have to take the statements that people make on these threads with a grain of salt. Remember, much of what people say here are things that they would not say in their parish. CAF becomes a venting ground. As long as we understand that many people are venting and it has nothing to do with us, it is ok to read and move along.

When the venting starts to make us doubt and second-guess ourelves and others, then it’s time to put a distance between us and the venting, because it’s becoming unhealthy.

And this, of course, in my darker soul, makes me wonder if they are wrong about other issues and teachings.

They can be. We don’t know.

As a convert, the issue of authority is very important to me, actually, supremely important. The main reason I converted from evangelical Protestantism to the Catholic Church is that I believe the Church has authority.

Unity is supported by obedience. So never stop obeying. Always be obedient and let God be the guide.

Always pray for peace.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Is it only me, or has this thread titled “The bickering stops here” evolved into . . . a lot of bickering? I really thought the OP was onto something.

 

[JReducation]

Is it only me, or has this thread titled “The bickering stops here” evolved into . . . a lot of bickering? I really thought the OP was onto something.

I think that you are correct. I also think that the OP is on to something.

JR

 

[benedictgal]

Most documents on liturgy try to address the liturgy in broad strokes, leaving room for the local espiscopal conferences to make prudential judgments for their nations and dioceses. There are some things that are not allowed. When they are not allowed, the documents will spell them out very clearly. There are other things that are encouraged, but are not law. Some of the statements made by the Holy Father during his Ratzinger days and his papal days are commentaries and reflections. They are food for thought and consideration in planning good liturgy that reflects the mystery of the cross.

For a diocese the local bishop is the final authority on liturgy and he is ultimately responsible. He is the person to whom the laity and others should go to if they cannot get a clear answer from their local pastor.

For a religioius house, the superior is the final authority.

Above those two is the Holy See.

Let me stop you right here. Your job is to play so that the congregation can join in the worship of God. If others sit there and make judgments about the music, that is their problem. If a person has enough time to think about this, instead of adoring and worshipping God during the mass, there is more going on with them than with your playing. I would not be second guessing myself. I can’t see the benefit of second guessing oneself.

How do they know?

Now you’re letting others plant seeds of doubt in your mind. This is not good. If this is what CAF is doing to you, it may be time to pull away for a while or stay out of these threads. We always have to take the statements that people make on these threads with a grain of salt. Remember, much of what people say here are things that they would not say in their parish. CAF becomes a venting ground. As long as we understand that many people are venting and it has nothing to do with us, it is ok to read and move along.

When the venting starts to make us doubt and second-guess ourelves and others, then it’s time to put a distance between us and the venting, because it’s becoming unhealthy.

They can be. We don’t know.

Unity is supported by obedience. So never stop obeying. Always be obedient and let God be the guide.

Always pray for peace.

Fraternally,

JR

JR, obedience flows both ways. Just as we are to be obedient to the local Ordinary or the Metropolitan in whose see we live, they, too, must be odebient to what the Holy See decides.

Back in November, I was blessed to attend the Gateway Liturgical Conference in St. Louis, MO. I was there specifically to hand-deliver a letter from my father to the Secretary to the Congregation for Divine Worship, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith. He talked about the Ars Celebrandi and how we need to ensure the proper celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. After his talk, I got to have a word with hiim off-stage. I told him about the sad state of music here in the United States. He told me that he understood my concerns and that a document from the Holy See would be forthcoming that would address the matter. Evidently, I am not the only one who has experienced frustration.

And yes, I have not been shy about telling my parish musical director that we need to wean ourselves out of the OCP dribble. A lot of these songs are about celebrating ourselves and about the community. It is all horizontal in nature and nothing vertical. Bob Hurd is especially notorioius for that.

I think that before anyone starts dismissing those of us who have legitimate concerns about the state of music in the Mass, those doing the criticizing should read the documents of the Holy See and start sizing up the music. If the dots do not connect, then the piece should not be used.

Incidentally, the USCCB decided to run a random sampling of songs and test them. Here are some of the benchmarks they used:

Is there a sufficient attention to the Trinity and to the Trinitarian structure of Catholic beliefs and teachings? Do our liturgical songs fail at times to present the Trinity as the central mystery of the Christian faith? Does the language used in referring to the Persons of the Trinity contribute at times to a lack of clarity? Is there a reluctance to use “Father” for the first person of the Blessed Trinity? Is the relationship between Jesus and the Father stressed sufficiently? Are there times when the word “God” is placed in a sentence where one would expect to find “Father” or “God the Father” since the reference is precisely to the relationship between the first and second persons of the Trinity?

Is there an obscured presentation of the centrality of Christ in salvation history and an insufficient emphasis on the divinity of Christ? Do our liturgical songs present Jesus as the culmination of the Old Testament and the fulfillment of God’s plan for our salvation? Is the indispensable place of the incarnation in the plan of salvation sufficiently presented? Is Jesus the Savior often overshadowed by Jesus the teacher, model, friend, and brother? Is there an appropriate balance? Is there an imbalance in our emphasis on the humanity or divinity of Jesus Christ? At times, can we detect a negative undertone in speaking of the divine nature of Christ, as if divinity is equated with being “distant and unreal.”

An indistinct treatment of the ecclesial context of Catholic beliefs and magisterial teachings?

Do the texts give insufficient emphasis to God’s initiative in the world with a corresponding overemphasis on human action?

Is there a sufficient recognition of the transforming effects of grace?

This is what they found:

Names for God: The first question asked in examining the songs was what names they used to refer to God. Here a full range of biblical titles were used, though “Father” was used only 10% of the time.

Trinitarian structure? None of the songs referred to the three persons of the Blessed Trinity or utilized a “Trinitarian structure.”

Christological? Only 35% of the songs referred to Christ.

Emphasizes Individual or Larger Church? 55% of the songs emphasized the individual believer, 35% emphasized concerns of the larger Church, while 10% were centered exclusively on praise of God.

Thus, even the USCCB is already seeing that the emperor’s new clothes aren’t exactly new at all.

 

[JReducation]

JR, obedience flows both ways. Just as we are to be obedient to the local Ordinary or the Metropolitan in whose see we live, they, too, must be odebient to what the Holy See decides.

Back in November, I was blessed to attend the Gateway Liturgical Conference in St. Louis, MO. I was there specifically to hand-deliver a letter from my father to the Secretary to the Congregation for Divine Worship, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith. He talked about the Ars Celebrandi and how we need to ensure the proper celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. After his talk, I got to have a word with hiim off-stage. I told him about the sad state of music here in the United States. He told me that he understood my concerns and that a document from the Holy See would be forthcoming that would address the matter. Evidently, I am not the only one who has experienced frustration.

And yes, I have not been shy about telling my parish musical director that we need to wean ourselves out of the OCP dribble. A lot of these songs are about celebrating ourselves and about the community. It is all horizontal in nature and nothing vertical. Bob Hurd is especially notorioius for that.

I think that before anyone starts dismissing those of us who have legitimate concerns about the state of music in the Mass, those doing the criticizing should read the documents of the Holy See and start sizing up the music. If the dots do not connect, then the piece should not be used.

Incidentally, the USCCB decided to run a random sampling of songs and test them. Here are some of the benchmarks they used:

This is what they found:

Thus, even the USCCB is already seeing that the emperor’s new clothes aren’t exactly new at all.

My point is that these discussions should not take away a person’s peace and much less their faith in the Church.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[LighthouseRon]

Keyboards in this case would mean something like the synthesizer that Duran Duran, A Flock of Seagus and Van Halen use.

While my earlier post was meant to add a bit of humor it also illustrates how language and their interpretations can be skewed, particularly when the interpreter has strong opinions leaning in one direction or another. We all do it. That’s why I choose to follow my priests and bishop first unless there is sufficient reason to question it rather than simply taking my own interpretations and expecting others within the church to follow it. I don’t understand all the requirements the church asks us to follow. Very few (if any) within the laity do, although some may claim to or they honestly may believe they do.

And yes, this thread has turned into one of those bickering back-and-forth threads, and I won’t contribute to it any longer.

 

[Lycoming]

Let’s see if I can show a textbook example of misinterpreting a Church document. In an earlier post we were given the following from the Church:
"Musicam Sacram:

1. 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.

Any musical instrument permitted in divine worship should be used in such a way that it meets the needs of the liturgical celebration, and is in the interests both of the beauty of worship and the edification of the faithful.

OK I accept that. I’m presuming it’s a verbatim quote of Musicam Sacram – I just copied and pasted it from this thread. Either way I’ll accept it. The above quote was followed with:

So then, section 63 pretty much wipes out the synthesizers (also referred to as keyboards), drum kits, electric guitars and bass guitars since these are suitable secular music and not for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Says who? You? You think you’re the arbiter of what is “suitable for secular music only” and that the synthesizer necessarily fits in that category? How did you conclude that? What was the process you used? While I’m not much of a musician I do try to break things down in a logical manner. In other words I try to think in a critical manner and I’m not seeing that in your postings.

Just what is a synthesizer (also referred to as keyboards?) It’s a digital musical instrument that among other things lets us closely (nearly perfectly in some cases) simulate the sounds of analog musical instruments. Using sampling and programming someone who knows what they are doing can make certain synthesizers sound like a grand pipe organ.

And we all know the Church says the pipe organ has a special place in the Church, right? So why would anyone suggest that “So then, section 63 pretty much wipes out the synthesizers”? That simply does not compute unless one does not know what a synthesizer is or if one did not have the charism to authoritatively interpret the document. Let’s get back to that in a second or two.

Let’s focus on the pipe organ itself for a moment. One of the reasons it was developed is because it can take the place of many musical instruments – woodwinds, brass, etc. A single organ with a capable organist can take the place of an orchestra or at least a chamber music ensemble. That’s the very function often handled by synthesizers today but at a far higher level. The synthesizer and pipe organ are first cousins.

That leads me to conclude four things. First; be it a synthesizer, pipe organ or other instrument it’s often how it’s played that determines if it’s appropriate for the liturgy. Second; I don’t think the Church prohibited the use of synthesizers (also referred to as keyboards) during the Mass in the aforementioned document and my personal opinion/interpretation is every bit as valid as benedictgal’s. Third; neither her opinion/interpretation nor my own is worth a hill of beans in the context of the Church. This is for the Magisterium to decide, not posters on CAF. Fourth; the OP and others have it right – this stuff does lead to bickering. It also leads to giving out erroneous information which ultimately causes confusion, frustration and division.

 

[mhazell]

Says who? You? You think you’re the arbiter of what is “suitable for secular music only” and that the synthesizer necessarily fits in that category? How did you conclude that? What was the process you used? While I’m not much of a musician I do try to break things down in a logical manner. In other words I try to think in a critical manner and I’m not seeing that in your postings.

…]

First; be it a synthesizer, pipe organ or other instrument it’s often how it’s played that determines if it’s appropriate for the liturgy. Second; I don’t think the Church prohibited the use of synthesizers (also referred to as keyboards) during the Mass in the aforementioned document and my personal opinion/interpretation is every bit as valid as benedictgal’s.

I suggest you read the quote again:

"[T]hose 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."

By common use, keyboards, *electric *guitars, drums and bass guitars are secular. There’s no denying that. (There’s a whole host of other instruments that fall under that category, but we’ll just stick with what’s been mentioned for now.) The pipe organ’s common use, on the other hand, is for church music (i.e. sacred music).

The Holy See has quite clearly said that instruments that are secular by common use are absolutely prohibited. No ifs, no buts. It seems to be your interpretation that is rather lacking, not benedictgal’s.

Letting instruments that are secular by their common use into the Mass means that the line between sacred and secular is blurred. The Mass is a sacred mystery, and as such the music we sing and instruments we use in the course of the liturgy should reflect that; instruments that are secular by any reasonable definition cannot serve this purpose. Hence why they are absolutely prohibited.

It is not just how something is played, though obviously this matters–if there is awful organ music every Sunday, for instance, perhaps it would be better if there were no organ music at all! The associations instruments have in people’s minds and cultures matter too. And, generally, electrically amplified instruments have secular associations which cannot belong at the Mass.

And, with all due respect, it is not personal opinions that are important. The liturgy is no-one’s private property to do with what they will. A coherent reading of the relevant documents (and part of coherency is reading in light of the existing tradition and previous documents), an examination of our Holy Father’s comments on liturgical music, and the comments of those priests and bishops who make up the CDWDS would all seem to point towards no keyboards/synths, electric guitars, drums, etc., at the Mass.