What do traditionalists think of the Piano?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We have wee little organs too, for those downstairs not game enough to tackle the Pipes, but we have a plan of succession in place now, and are teaching people to play. Its such a thrill watching music students from high school playing the Pipe Organ.

Succession is really important. And maintenance. Each year there is a group of concerts on the Pipe Organs in the region, be they in Catholic or other churches. This group of concerts, whose musicians are absolutely gifted and amazing professionals, ensure the old pipes are kept in tip top condition and tuned. Though how you tune a pipe organ is beyond me.
 
I agree with you about “succession.”

For over a decade, I have chaired a children’s/teen music competition (classical music) for piano, strings, and instruments. The competition has been around for almost 60 years. When my daughter did the competition, there were dozens of piano students at the lower levels competing, and now…last year we had around a dozen total.

First, there aren’t as many piano teachers, and those who are around charge $50.00 per hour, which is too much for many families.

Second, there are not as many families who are willing to get their children into music lessons. Oh, they might try it for a month or so, but when the child doesn’t love it, and doesn’t want to practice or go to the lesson, the parents cave and stop the lessons. It’s HARD to learn to play an instrument, and parents need to be willing to allow their child to “suffer” for at least a year or two before giving up. (Unless it’s clear that the child has talents in other areas that should be developed instead of music–and I’m NOT talking about computer acumen! Some parents actually think that because their child plays video games for hours on end that they have an aptitude for computer science–how pathetic!))

As for organ–my organ teacher (who is on the national board of AGO and is a FAGO, and who loves to teach) always starts his young students out on piano first (because they can’t reach much of the organ because they’re too small), and gradually gets them onto the organ. I think this is probably the way many organ teachers handle very young students.

So yes, succession is very important, and it’s my opinion that the dioceses of the U.S. need to develop a plan that will insure that children ARE learning to play the keyboard instruments and that there is MONEY to help parents pay for the very expensive lessons, and that there are “apprentice” opportunities in their parishes (e.g., an older pianist plays the left hand to a hymn while the child plays the right hand–fun, and less pressure for the child!), and that there are regular recital opportunities for all the diocesan children and teens who are taking music lessons (voice would be included here), and finally, that there is some kind of scholarship program that will make it easier for high schoolers to make a decision to attend a Catholic university and either major in or emphasize liturgical music.

I believe it has to be diocesan rather than individual parishes who are encouraging musical training, simply because many parishes don’t have a big enough congregation to afford it, and yet, they are the ones in most need of keyboard musicians (organ/piano).

Perhaps some dioceses in the U.S. already do these kinds of things–I would love to hear about how they do it.
 
@(name removed by moderator), regarding your claim of Church discipline on what music/instruments are allowed, let me ask you a common sense question. All over the world, what percentage of parish priests do you think are being condemned to hell for violating the discipline you speak of? If what you say is right, it must be something like 99%. And then there is the lack of contemporary enforcement. If violations of this discipline were so widespread, and priests and others were being led to hell by allowing these violations, wouldn’t you think some mention of it would be made by the Church in the last 50 years? I don’t have the expertise to comb through all the relevant declarations, but I can’t help but think that you are mistaken and have just overlooked something. I trust my parish priest who is just fine with the piano, and with the Spanish mass that includes an electronic keyboard, trumpet, harmonica, and occasional wood blocks - and with men and women singing together in the choir.
 
Last edited:
50 years of widespread “abuse” without comment is hardly “every other day.”
I assure you that, if there was such a declaration, I would be aware of it.
Click to expand...
The assurances of a total stranger who I know only by three letters is less than satisfying.
The fact numerous priests and canonical experts have condemned such practices is testimony that there is not.
Click to expand...
Please cite the highest such authority you can find speaking out on this subject today. (At least a bishop.)
Your priest is in the wrong in regards to discipline, whether he realises it or not. Your mockery of the authority of encyclicals when you say parish priests are being ‘condemned to hell’ for perhaps unwittingly disobeying them is frankly appalling.
Click to expand...
“Unwittingly?” I find it more than a bit surprising that every priest I have ever known is unaware of what a random stranger on the Internet is aware of.
 
Last edited:
Any other instrument besides organ needs permission from the bishop. Piano and other instruments that are not organ should be used rarely.

To me, anything that resembles too closely to secular music should be avoided. Sacred music such as Gregorian Chant, should have pride of place.

In the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963) it is said,
In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem , for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.

But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship , with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful .
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
??? This sentence makes no sense.
[/quote]
Let me spell it out for you. Your explanation of the lack of contemporary comment on the issues of music under discussion was that the Vatican does not issue declarations and encyclicals “every other day.” So I pointed out that they have not re-affirmed these rules in 50 years, despite widespread violations of those “rules.” The only reasonable conclusion is that the specifics of Pius’s remarks have been superseded by subsequent legislation, as mentioned here. But even without that mention, a rational layperson would conclude that it must be so because so many of those who would know better are acting as if that is so.
LeafByNiggle said:
The assurances of a total stranger who I know only by three letters is less than satisfying.
Click to expand...
Of course they are. However, those of Pius X shouldn’t be:
Click to expand...
As I said above, those rule have apparently been superseded. I just don’t know where because I am not a Canon lawyer. But I trust the men the Church has placed in authority today through the Holy Spirit to know those details.
LeafByNiggle said:
Please cite the highest such authority you can find speaking out on this subject today. (At least a bishop.)
Click to expand...
I don’t see why the onus is on me here:
Click to expand...
Because what you claim is too much at odds with what I see and what I have been taught. You can keep quoting that 100 year-old document all you want, but until you find some modern confirmation and reaffirmation of those rules and some explanation of why they are not enforced, I will continue to believe that they have been superseded.
 
Strange–because of my upbringing and background and life experiences, to ME, Gregorian chant “resembles secular music.” In fact, I have a very hard time when I hear it in Mass thinking of it as “sacred.” To me, it sounds like movie soundtracks. We just watched a Svengoolie horror film last night that had a sound track with chant in the background.

Whereas–because of my upbringing and background and life experiences, “Gospel” music IS sacred music. I know that some Catholics view it as “secular sounding,” but that’s because of THEIR upbringing, background, and life experiences.

And once again, as has been said many times on these forums–Gregorian chant is not for the average layperson to sing. It must be taught (which means there must be a teacher), and it must be learned (which means that there must be students).
 
The Church’s norms on sacred music have not been superseded, and were in fact defended just last year in a Declaration issued by bishops, priests, and liturgical and musical scholars. You can read the Declaration and find a link to the names of the 200+ signatories here: RORATE CÆLI: International Declaration on Sacred Music
LeafByNiggle said:
Because what you claim is too much at odds with what I see and what I have been taught. You can keep quoting that 100 year-old document all you want, but until you find some modern confirmation and reaffirmation of those rules and some explanation of why they are not enforced, I will continue to believe that they have been superseded.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, Pope John Paul II confirmed that the Moto Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini remains in force as recently as 2003; see here: Chirograph for the Centenary of the Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini On Sacred Music (December 3, 2003) | John Paul II
[/quote]

Sorry, but that’s a fail too. The first document you cite is not authoritative, but expresses the opinion of the signatories, who are: “over 200 musicians, pastors, and scholars.” That’s not how Roman Catholic discipline is defined.

And the second document you cite, while authoritative, does not say what you claim. It affirms the spirit of Tra le Sollecitudini , but not all the specifics (of which there are many.) The words “piano” and “women” do not appear in the document, so it hard to say the document re-affirms the banning of the piano and the separation of men and women in choirs. This second document does cite a Vatican II document, SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, which says:
In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.

But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.
Click to expand...
This does not ban the piano, provided the piano can be made suitable in accord with the dignity of the temple and contribute to the edification of the faithful. So it is up to competent authority, and by all evidence of common practice, it seems common authority has is large measure approved the use of the piano and other instruments. (And women and men singing together in a choir.)
 
I’m not here to argue, but according to the Catholic Church, Gregorian Chant is sacred to the Church and not necessarily the person. It’s more objective rather than subjective.

Secular really just means it holds no special significance or tradition in the Church.
 
Well that’s just not true.
You should talk to your pastor or diocese and see about getting a music degree, or perhaps enter the seminary if that’s your call. And you can work with people on this. You seem to have a passion, it just needs to be directed.
 
That’s great. You should realize that no one does this by himself, he does it in union with others, knowing what’s allowed, what’s not allowed, and which battles to pick.
Your missive on the piano is a non-starter.
 
I am in Australia, We do music through school initially. In some convent schools there are Pipe Organs here. Not every Parish has a pipe organ, so the players and singers do become Diocese wide. We also include non Catholics who want to contribute musically. Our Carols night is coming up and the Cathedral will be packed, include clergy from catholic and non Catholic Churches, and musicians and singers from everywhere… People come from far and wide for this night. The music is quite professional.
We also have scripture reading and prayer, read and shared through the denominations. Female ordained ministers, religious sisters, the Catholic Bishop, you name it.
It’s also a great ad to attract interested parties to the Pipe Organs here.

Music lessons are term costs through schools, both Catholic , state and other denominations. The same teachers usually teach at each school. There are scholarship programs in schools and into high schools for
 
There is a thread now locked. Enough said. It’s fruitless asking for proof of claims being made
 
Last edited:
My pastor says otherwise. My bishop says otherwise. No, I will not stop refuting untruth wherever I find it.

You have cited Papal documents that define a discipline 100 years ago. Some aspects of that discipline have been superseded, as cited in documents in this thread. You have steadfastly refused to explain any of the common sense objections I have raised to your claim. I don’t expect to convince you, but I don’t want any casual readers of this forum to be misled by these claims.

I know the piano has not been banned in Roman Catholic Churches in Michigan and Minnesota, and I expect it has not been banned in more that 2% of Churches.
… AND EVEN IF THIS WERE A CAUSE OF DOUBT, YOU CAN VERY WELL LOOK AT CANON 21.
Click to expand...
I have looked at it and it says:
In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.
Click to expand...
I expect that if such an explicit revocation was necessary, it has been done. My lack of knowledge of such revocation does not mean it hasn’t been done. Church laws like this are understood best by those in authority. And for the layperson, I trust those in authority to follow relevant Church law. It is not my job to instruct my bishop on what the Church law is.
 
Last edited:
There are two ways of doing that, educated and opinion. Unfortunately, ‘ I just know’ or many priests and bishops have condemned it’ are just opinions.
And it’s degenerating to very uncharitable comments on your part, to others.
And that is why conversation has become fruitless on this issue. Good day to you.
 
Last edited:
I don’t enjoy pointing out hypocrisy, but in this case you leave me no choice. You wrote,

Please cite the highest such authority you can find speaking out on this subject today. (At least a bishop.)

Apparently, my mistake was to take your words at face value.
[/quote]
I’m sorry, were there bishops who signed that non-authoritative document? Which ones were they?
I am acquainted with a dozen priests who follow the directives of the Church and take pains to disallow these abuses.
Click to expand...
Can you give me some names and their diocese?
…so I’ll thank you kindly to stop assuming that your (anecdotal) experiences are somehow reflective of the Church as a whole.
Click to expand...
You can keep your thanks, because I think it is reflective. Now if a particular parish or diocese bans the piano, well, then that is the practice for that diocese or parish. But it appears you too are assuming your anecdotal experiences are reflective of the Church as a whole.
 
EXCEPT, IT HASN’T, THERE’S BEEN NO SUCH REVOCATION. JPII reaffirmed the decree literally just over a decade ago.
[/quote]
You cited that JPII document and I read it. It affirms the spirit of the earlier document, but not all the specifics. If you think otherwise, please quote the relevant passage so I know where you are getting this from.
 
Last edited:
Lefebvre had died. It was lifted 18 years later for the four surviving bishops that were with him, but it was not retroactive for Lefebvre, according to this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top