What do you think about guitars during mass?

[benedictgal]

Contemprary hymns like “On Eagles Wings” and “We are Called” (composed by Catholics and not Protestants) do meet the criteria that you mentioned before to qualify as sacred music. In time, I believe they will remain in the lexicon of sacred music and become as well know as “Ave Verum” over time. In fact, if you are referring to “Ave Verum Corpus” that is so popular in church services today, it was part of Mozart’s Requiem Mass that was first performed in a concert hall in front of a secular audience before it was performed in a church. Oh, and by the way, what kind of organ did the apostles at their services? Pope John Paul II attended masses when he visited the U.S. several times and went out of his way to praise the use of gutars and other “secular” instuments in the celebration of the mass. I think you augument is full of hot air!

First of all, with all due respect, with regard to the organ, I think you are falling prey to antiquarianism concerning what the Apostles used. And, truth be told, they were chanting, since chant was the mode of prayer used in Ancient Israel and it was appropriated by the Church, who is the New Israel.

I also think that you have fallen prey to the impressive OCP marketing regime which only serves to promote its own agenda (after all, it is the publisher of this tripe) rather than what the Church requires.

The same Pope John Paul II that you claim praised the use of the guitar (do you have anything written to verify this) also wrote the following:

1. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[11]. For this very reason, “not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold”, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. And he explained that “if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious”[13]. Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

St Pius X’s reform aimed specifically at purifying Church music from the contamination of profane theatrical music that in many countries had polluted the repertoire and musical praxis of the Liturgy. In our day too, careful thought, as I emphasized in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, should be given to the fact that not all the expressions of figurative art or of music are able “to express adequately the mystery grasped in the fullness of the Church’s faith”[14]. Consequently, not all forms of music can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.

1. Another principle, affirmed by St Pius X in the Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini and which is closely connected with the previous one, is that of sound form. There can be no music composed for the celebration of sacred rites which is not first of all “true art” or which does not have that efficacy “which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her Liturgy the art of musical sounds”[15].

…6. The music and song requested by the liturgical reform - it is right to stress this point - must comply with the legitimate demands of adaptation and inculturation. It is clear, however, that any innovation in this sensitive matter must respect specific criteria such as the search for musical expressions which respond to the necessary involvement of the entire assembly in the celebration and which, at the same time, avoid any concessions to frivolity or superficiality. Likewise, on the whole, those elitist forms of “inculturation” which introduce into the Liturgy ancient or contemporary compositions of possible artistic value, but that indulge in a language that is incomprehensible to the majority, should be avoided.

In this regard St Pius X pointed out - using the term universal - a further prerequisite of music destined for worship: “…while every nation”, he noted, “is permitted to admit into its ecclesiastical compositions those special forms which may be said to constitute its native music, still these forms must be subordinate in such a manner to the general character of sacred music, that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them”[16]. In other words, the sacred context of the celebration must never become a laboratory for experimentation or permit forms of composition and performance to be introduced without careful review.

1. Among the musical expressions that correspond best with the qualities demanded by the notion of sacred music, especially liturgical music, Gregorian chant has a special place. The Second Vatican Council recognized that “being specially suited to the Roman Liturgy”[17] it should be given, other things being equal, pride of place in liturgical services sung in Latin[18]. St Pius X pointed out that the Church had “inherited it from the Fathers of the Church”, that she has “jealously guarded [it] for centuries in her liturgical codices” and still “proposes it to the faithful” as her own, considering it “the supreme model of sacred music”[19]. Thus, Gregorian chant continues also today to be an element of unity in the Roman Liturgy.

Like St Pius X, the Second Vatican Council also recognized that “other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations”[20]. It is therefore necessary to pay special attention to the new musical expressions to ascertain whether they too can express the inexhaustible riches of the Mystery proposed in the Liturgy and thereby encourage the active participation of the faithful in celebrations[21].

This hardly constitutes praise for the guitar or for other secular instruments. In fact, he pulls no punches when he notes that even today, music needs to be purified.

 

[Bluegoat]

Here is a perfect example of how people can read the same thing and not see it quite the same way.

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.

The comment on it was:

When an instrument is commonly used for secular music, as is the case with electric guitars, bass guitars (regardless how many necks are attached to them), drun kits, bongos and the like, they are prohibited, as Musicam Sacram indicates.

To me, these things are not the same at all. The document said instruments “which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only” whereas the poster says instruments “which are commonly used for secular music”. There is clearly a difference, from a basic grammatical reading.

The quote does not say that any instrument used commonly in secular music is inappropriate, nor does it suggest that an instrument could not have a strong role in both sacred or secular music. The bagpipes was mentioned earlier - they have a tradition both as an instrument for sacred music and a longstanding secular role in the military, as well as at parties and dances in several folk traditions.

It does say that is it is commonly seen to appropriate only for secular music, than it should not be used for sacred music. So what is meant by common opinion and use? It clearly doesn’t refer only to what the Holy See has said. It might mean “what has been used in the past in the Church”, but in that case it is remarkably unclear, and doesn’t actually seem to make sense - it could mean that we ought still to be doing what was done in the first century, or the 6th, which is arbitrary. It seems to me to mean a combination of twhat was used in the past, and also what is held by most people (presumably Catholic ones) in the particular time and place in question. Which means it is relative to time, it is relative to culture, and it may even be relative to particular audiences or situations.

Thus, keeping all this in mind, those making decisions about music in a particular time and place must come to a conclusion about what instruments are only appropriate for secular music (that is never appropriate for sacred music.) It seems to me this clearly leaves the door open for the possibility of things like piano or classical guitar. It also means that even to bar an instrument like the bongo drums would require a discussion (perhaps a short one in that case) relating the ban it to common use and opinion.

What this all means is there is indeed room for discernment about appropriate instruments, it is not as clear cut as some here would argue, and can really only be done relative to a certain area and a certain period of time.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I love that the bassoon is on the okay list from the 1700s!

 

[CWBetts]

Here is a perfect example of how people can read the same thing and not see it quite the same way.

The comment on it was:

To me, these things are not the same at all. The document said instruments “which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only” whereas the poster says instruments “which are commonly used for secular music”. There is clearly a difference, from a basic grammatical reading.

The quote does not say that any instrument used commonly in secular music is inappropriate, nor does it suggest that an instrument could not have a strong role in both sacred or secular music. The bagpipes was mentioned earlier - they have a tradition both as an instrument for sacred music and a longstanding secular role in the military, as well as at parties and dances in several folk traditions.

It does say that is it is commonly seen to appropriate only for secular music, than it should not be used for sacred music. So what is meant by common opinion and use? It clearly doesn’t refer only to what the Holy See has said. It might mean “what has been used in the past in the Church”, but in that case it is remarkably unclear, and doesn’t actually seem to make sense - it could mean that we ought still to be doing what was done in the first century, or the 6th, which is arbitrary. It seems to me to mean a combination of twhat was used in the past, and also what is held by most people (presumably Catholic ones) in the particular time and place in question. Which means it is relative to time, it is relative to culture, and it may even be relative to particular audiences or situations.

Thus, keeping all this in mind, those making decisions about music in a particular time and place must come to a conclusion about what instruments are only appropriate for secular music (that is never appropriate for sacred music.) It seems to me this clearly leaves the door open for the possibility of things like piano or classical guitar. It also means that even to bar an instrument like the bongo drums would require a discussion (perhaps a short one in that case) relating the ban it to common use and opinion.

What this all means is there is indeed room for discernment about appropriate instruments, it is not as clear cut as some here would argue, and can really only be done relative to a certain area and a certain period of time.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[CTA1967]

Oops, I slightly misread the article I linked. It mentioned that primitive pianos were used in early operas. But still, the pipe organ is not the only instrument that has historically been endorsed by the Church.

 

[benedictgal]

We are not talking about inculturation here. We are talking about the fact that, as Musicam Sacram points out:

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.

Even Pope John Paul II noted that after 100 years (from the date of the promulgation of the MP of Pope St. Pius X), music today still stands in need of much purification.

Folks may try to pull the grammatical argument to try to derail what I have said about musical instruments. But, I stand by what I have written. While Protestant ecclesial communities have admitted these secular instruments (drum kits, electric and bass guitars and other things that you would commonly see at a rock concert) into their services, it cannot and should not be that way with the Church.

What we are doing is something altogether different. They only have the Word and augment their services with lots of music and lots of preaching. We have both the Word and the Holy Sacrifice. What we have is the union between Heaven and Earth. What we have is the lifting of the veil that separates time and space so as to allow us to be just as present at the salviffic acts of the Upper Room, Calvary and the Resurrection just as the Blessed Mother, St. Mary Magdalene and the Apostles were.

These secular instruments that I have mentioned are incompatible with this august mystery. There is a strong disconnect here.

 

[WinterWH]

Just passing along some absolutely unverified “information”: that the instrument other than organ must be indigenous to the country in which the mass is being celebrated.

The guitar is indigenous to Spain.

The instrument that is indigenous to the United States is the banjo.

 

[benedictgal]

Just passing along some absolutely unverified “information”: that the instrument other than organ must be indigenous to the country in which the mass is being celebrated.

The guitar is indigenous to Spain.

The instrument that is indigenous to the United States is the banjo.

But, the banjo is suitable for secular music only, since it is commonly used in the country and folk musical genres. That would not make it suitable for use in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass per Musicam Sacram.

 

[4Squarebaby]

Just passing along some absolutely unverified “information”: that the instrument other than organ must be indigenous to the country in which the mass is being celebrated.

The guitar is indigenous to Spain.

The instrument that is indigenous to the United States is the banjo.

So what happens when an alien culture overwelms the indigenious one. Like Spain did to the Philippines and Latin America? Does the Spanish influence in the American Southweat make guitars acceptable there but not the Northeast?

 

[benedictgal]

Here is a perfect example of how people can read the same thing and not see it quite the same way.

The comment on it was:

To me, these things are not the same at all. The document said instruments “which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only” whereas the poster says instruments “which are commonly used for secular music”. There is clearly a difference, from a basic grammatical reading.

The quote does not say that any instrument used commonly in secular music is inappropriate, nor does it suggest that an instrument could not have a strong role in both sacred or secular music. The bagpipes was mentioned earlier - they have a tradition both as an instrument for sacred music and a longstanding secular role in the military, as well as at parties and dances in several folk traditions.

It does say that is it is commonly seen to appropriate only for secular music, than it should not be used for sacred music. So what is meant by common opinion and use? It clearly doesn’t refer only to what the Holy See has said. It might mean “what has been used in the past in the Church”, but in that case it is remarkably unclear, and doesn’t actually seem to make sense - it could mean that we ought still to be doing what was done in the first century, or the 6th, which is arbitrary. It seems to me to mean a combination of twhat was used in the past, and also what is held by most people (presumably Catholic ones) in the particular time and place in question. Which means it is relative to time, it is relative to culture, and it may even be relative to particular audiences or situations.

Thus, keeping all this in mind, those making decisions about music in a particular time and place must come to a conclusion about what instruments are only appropriate for secular music (that is never appropriate for sacred music.) It seems to me this clearly leaves the door open for the possibility of things like piano or classical guitar. It also means that even to bar an instrument like the bongo drums would require a discussion (perhaps a short one in that case) relating the ban it to common use and opinion.

What this all means is there is indeed room for discernment about appropriate instruments, it is not as clear cut as some here would argue, and can really only be done relative to a certain area and a certain period of time.

Does your ecclesial community have norms for music or do you allow just about anything that can to get into the barn?

I ask this because, as I read your posts, you read the documents as being merely suggestive. That is not necessarily the way that a Catholic should read the authoritative documents of the Holy See. In fact, Pope John Paul II, in his Chirograph on Sacred Music, made a very telling statment, when, quoting his predecessor, Pope Paul VI, he wrote that:

1. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, “sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action”[11]. For this very reason, “not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold”, my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12[/COLOR]]. And he explained that “if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious”[13]. Today, moreover, the meaning of the category “sacred music” has been broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself.

Here in this quote, he lists the prelininary qualification for what should constitute sacred music.

 

[Bluegoat]

Does your ecclesial community have norms for music or do you allow just about anything that can to get into the barn?

I ask this because, as I read your posts, you read the documents as being merely suggestive. That is not necessarily the way that a Catholic should read the authoritative documents of the Holy See. In fact, Pope John Paul II, in his Chirograph on Sacred Music, made a very telling statment, when, quoting his predecessor, Pope Paul VI, he wrote that:

Here in this quote, he lists the prelininary qualification for what should constitute sacred music.

I’m not sure what any other group does has anything to do with the present discussion. Unless you think that what my religious community says might be instructive? (I would suggest that my church might - my Church, not so much.) Or are you suggesting that since I’m not Catholic, there is no way I could understand what it means to have an authoritative document of some kind? Aside from that being an ad hominem - and thus invalid - argument, I don’t think you know enough about me or my background to make a statement of that kind.

I’m not sure why you think I believe the documents are suggestive, rather than authoritative for Catholics. I haven’t said anything like that. I have suggested that you are misunderstanding based on what seems like a grammatical error. I have also suggested a few possible readings of the document are unlikely because they would lead to absurd conclusions, or they suggest that the people who wrote them have no understanding of history, which seems improbable. Both of these are conventional ways of looking at texts of all kinds in the Church. You haven’t actually addressed any of these points. I would be especially interested in how is is that ‘all instruments used for secular music’ equates in your mind to ‘instruments appropriate for only secular music’.

The way you are interpreting what this document has said seems clearly incorrect to me, I could be wrong of course, but several others have also suggested the same thing, including Catholics. I don’t think accusing me of being clueless because I’m not Catholic, and then accusing them of being clueless because they must be bad Catholics, really cuts the mustard if you won’t actually explain why your reading is a better one.

I’m not sure what your point is with the quote by Paul VI - it doesn’t disagree with anything I have said, nor do I disagree with any of it.

 

[de_profundis]

I’m not going to pretend I read all 16 pages, but here’s my 2 cents:

Played in the right manner, the guitar is a sublime instrument. If you have ever had the pleasure to listen to the likes of the great Italian classical era composer Luigi Boccherini and his renowned ‘guitar quintets’ then you know what I am talking about. If you haven’t, then you shouldn’t even comment on what the guitar is good for and what it is not good for.

The cheesy, bad taste, inappropriate pop songs in your typical youth liturgy give this splendidly timeless instrument a bad name. Let’s not get hung up on the types of instruments used, but the way in which they are (ab)used. Hey, I love the organ, but please spare me, I’ve heard some organ music that is in atrociously bad taste, and an offense to good organ music. But we shouldn’t get rid of the organ based on this.

Yes, I agree an electric guitar has no place in a mass. But the simple elegance of a classical guitar piece cannot and should not be denied a place in liturgical music. The pityful thing is that the guitar is rarely used in this manner when it comes to the liturgy. Keep the guitar, but played in the right manner. Don’t rule it out completely because some over eager teen wants to bring some of his favourite top 40 hits into the music ministry. Let’s have a little sense here!

 

[pnewton]

Oh, and there is no such thing as “secular instrument.” That is so ridiculous I can’t put it into words.

No, there aren’t purely secular instruments.

Rather than complain about the way benedictgirl sees these passages applied and call her names for her opinion, let me ask you and others how you see this document applying. What do you think are specific applicatons?

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

I know I do not agree with bgal on all this, but her reasoning is sound.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m not sure what any other group does has anything to do with the present discussion. Unless you think that what my religious community says might be instructive? (I would suggest that my church might - my Church, not so much.) Or are you suggesting that since I’m not Catholic, there is no way I could understand what it means to have an authoritative document of some kind? Aside from that being an ad hominem - and thus invalid - argument, I don’t think you know enough about me or my background to make a statement of that kind.

I’m not sure why you think I believe the documents are suggestive, rather than authoritative for Catholics. I haven’t said anything like that. I have suggested that you are misunderstanding based on what seems like a grammatical error. I have also suggested a few possible readings of the document are unlikely because they would lead to absurd conclusions, or they suggest that the people who wrote them have no understanding of history, which seems improbable. Both of these are conventional ways of looking at texts of all kinds in the Church. You haven’t actually addressed any of these points. I would be especially interested in how is is that ‘all instruments used for secular music’ equates in your mind to ‘instruments appropriate for only secular music’.

The way you are interpreting what this document has said seems clearly incorrect to me, I could be wrong of course, but several others have also suggested the same thing, including Catholics. I don’t think accusing me of being clueless because I’m not Catholic, and then accusing them of being clueless because they must be bad Catholics, really cuts the mustard if you won’t actually explain why your reading is a better one.

I’m not sure what your point is with the quote by Paul VI - it doesn’t disagree with anything I have said, nor do I disagree with any of it.

My point in quoting Pope Paul VI is that he clearly understood the nature of Sacred Music when he said that not everything is fit to cross the threshold. Not everything is admissable into the Church.

I believe I have already clearly stated that the electric guitar, including the bass guitar, drum kits and the like have no place in the Mass based on what Musicam Sacram notes. Their use is associated with secular music and is not fitting for the Holy Sacrifice. The passages from the Chirograph written by Pope John Paul II also back up what I wrote.

You are also putting words in my mouth. I never said that those Catholics, and I believe you are referring to my exchange with CWBettis are bad Catholics. He was the one who accused me and anyone faithful to the documents of the Church as being arrogant. Even the scriptural references he used failed to make his point, since none of the instruments he mentioned were even used in the cultic sacrificial worship of Ancient Israel.

What I asked you was a legitimate question regarding what requirements your ecclesial community has regarding music used at your service. I use the term ecclesial community because that is the terminology used by the Church.

 

[pnewton]

But, the banjo is suitable for secular music only, since it is commonly used in the country and folk musical genres. That would not make it suitable for use in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass per Musicam Sacram.

If we are still looking for American instruments, there is always the howitzer.
youtube.com/watch?v=ZzzU1WanyQ8

(FYI - video of 1812 Overture as seen from the orchestra’s arilllery section.

 

[CTA1967]

If we are still looking for American instruments, there is always the howitzer.
youtube.com/watch?v=ZzzU1WanyQ8

(FYI - video of 1812 Overture as seen from the orchestra’s arilllery section.

I’ll have to talk to my music director about bringing one of those to church!

Well, I just asked about instruments allowed at mass in the “Ask an Apologist” forum, so hopefully that should shed some more light on this issue.

 

[Cat]

Here is a perfect example of how people can read the same thing and not see it quite the same way.

The comment on it was:

To me, these things are not the same at all. The document said instruments “which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only” whereas the poster says instruments “which are commonly used for secular music”. There is clearly a difference, from a basic grammatical reading.

The quote does not say that any instrument used commonly in secular music is inappropriate, nor does it suggest that an instrument could not have a strong role in both sacred or secular music. The bagpipes was mentioned earlier - they have a tradition both as an instrument for sacred music and a longstanding secular role in the military, as well as at parties and dances in several folk traditions.

It does say that is it is commonly seen to appropriate only for secular music, than it should not be used for sacred music. So what is meant by common opinion and use? It clearly doesn’t refer only to what the Holy See has said. It might mean “what has been used in the past in the Church”, but in that case it is remarkably unclear, and doesn’t actually seem to make sense - it could mean that we ought still to be doing what was done in the first century, or the 6th, which is arbitrary. It seems to me to mean a combination of twhat was used in the past, and also what is held by most people (presumably Catholic ones) in the particular time and place in question. Which means it is relative to time, it is relative to culture, and it may even be relative to particular audiences or situations.

Thus, keeping all this in mind, those making decisions about music in a particular time and place must come to a conclusion about what instruments are only appropriate for secular music (that is never appropriate for sacred music.) It seems to me this clearly leaves the door open for the possibility of things like piano or classical guitar. It also means that even to bar an instrument like the bongo drums would require a discussion (perhaps a short one in that case) relating the ban it to common use and opinion.

What this all means is there is indeed room for discernment about appropriate instruments, it is not as clear cut as some here would argue, and can really only be done relative to a certain area and a certain period of time.

Excellent. Thank you.

I have the feeling that, if my Bishop chooses to honor my letter with a response, he will say something much like this. But we shall see.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Rather than complain about the way benedictgirl sees these passages applied and call her names for her opinion, let me ask you and others how you see this document applying. What do you think are specific applicatons?

Whoa, there! You quoted me, so I need to point out that i don’t complain about how benedictgal sees these passages applied, not do I call her names! I appreciate that she is incredibly well versed in Church documents and can actually quote them to support her posts on this and many other topics.

That said, I think some of the difference in interpretation is whether the document is talking about instruments that are primarily used for secular purposes, across a given culture, or instruments that frequently are but haven’t been entirely co-opted yet.

I think the classical guitar, when played well, can be used properly in liturgy. It does not have a 100% secular identity. Rock bands, though, do. They are easily identified as the church trying to look secular to be relevant. Maybe that was true of strummed guitars back in the 70s; I’m not quite old enough to remember that.

I wonder what would happen if we recorded a bunch of church music in different forms, and then obscured the lyrics. Chant would be instantly recognizable as liturgical. Pipe organ one would suspect to be. Classical guitar would be a definite maybe. A lot of what we hear in churches would not be.

 

[Cat]

Rather than complain about the way benedictgirl sees these passages applied and call her names for her opinion, let me ask you and others how you see this document applying. What do you think are specific applicatons?

I know I do not agree with bgal on all this, but her reasoning is sound.

Since you asked, since I first read this document (before I ever joined CAF), I have always believed that this statement is quite vague on purpose in order to give the local authority (bishop) the freedom he needs to be able to decide what instruments are appropriate and inappropriate for his diocese.

I think there’s wiggle room.

In order for me to accept that the piano and other instruments are strictly forbidden in the Mass, I would have to see an actual statement that said, “The Piano and the Guitar are strictly forbidden in the Mass.” The statement that you quoted, the one that benedictgal keeps posting, does NOT say that at all. It’s refers to “common opinion”–what’s that? (My friends may have a completely different opinion than your friends–which group of friends is considered "common?!)

FrancisB has provided a statement specifically forbidding the use of piano and guitar in Mass (a quote from Pope Piux X). I don’t know enough about Catholicism to be able to say that this statement is still binding. He and others claim that a Pope’s statements in Church documents are forever binding. I think ?? that this is incorrect, but I don’t know how to go about proving that. (In RCIA and in our parish Bible studies, we don’t study ways to prove why we should ignore a Pope).

That’s why I’m appealing to my dear Bishop, and I hope that he will provide me with the answer to not only my question about instruments in Mass, but also the question about which statements of a Pope are binding upon the faithful forever.

 

[CTA1967]

FrancisB has provided a statement specifically forbidding the use of piano and guitar in Mass (a quote from Pope Piux X). I don’t know enough about Catholicism to be able to say that this statement is still binding. He and others claim that a Pope’s statements in Church documents are forever binding. I think ?? that this is incorrect, but I don’t know how to go about proving that. (In RCIA and in our parish Bible studies, we don’t study ways to prove why we should ignore a Pope).

If everything a Pope states is forever binding, that would make no sense. Here’s a quote from the previous page:

From time to time regulations have been issued governing the use of instruments and condemning existing abuses. In 1728 Benedict XII rebuked a community of Benedictine nuns in Milan for using other instruments than the organ during high Mass and Vespers. He also forbade the Franciscans to use any other instrument than the organ in their conventual churches. Benedict XIV in his encyclical “Annus qui nunc vertentem” (19 February, 1749) tolerates only the organ, stringed instruments, and bassoons. Kettle-drums, horns, trombones, oboes, flutes, pianos, and mandolins are prohibited. In the “Regolamento” of 1884, flutes, trombones, and kettle-drums are permitted on account of the improved manner in which they are now used as compared with former times. In the name of Gregory XVI, the Cardinal-Vicar of Rome, Patrizi, prohibited (1842) the use of instruments in the Roman churches, with the exception of a few to be used in a becoming manner in accompanying the singing, and then only after permission had been secured from the proper authority. This order was renewed in 1856 by the same cardinal in the name of Pius IX. Pius X, in his “Motu proprio” on church music (22 November, 1903) in paragraph IV, says, “Although the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music, music with the accompaniment of the organ is also permitted. In some special cases, within due limits and with the proper regards other instruments may be allowed, but never without the special license of the ordinary, according to the prescription of the ‘Cæremoniale Episcoporum’. As the chant should always have the first place, the organ or instruments should merely sustain and never suppress it. It is not permitted to have the chant preceded by long preludes, or to have it interrupted with intermezzo pieces”, etc. Among those who have recently written, within the prescribed limits, works for voices and instruments for liturgical, are, I. Mitterer, G.J.E. Stehle, M. Brosig, Max Filke, George Zeller, L. Bonvin, S.J., C. Greith, F.X. Witt, P. Griesbacher, J.G. Meuerer, and J. Rheinberger. The present trend is, however, decidedly away from the instrumental idea and back to the purely vocal style. And it is recognized, and in many places acted upon, that the new version of the liturgical chant, proposed to the Catholic world by Pius X, gains its full beauty and effectiveness only when sung without instrumental accompaniment of any kind.

I would assume that the Musicam Sacram benedictgal keeps posting replaces Pope St. Pius X’s statement.