What do you think about guitars during mass?

[Cat]

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.

boldface mine. I respectfully disagree with the boldface statement above.

As an ex-Protestant, I do not recognize chant as liturgical. I didn’t know what liturgy was as a Protestant (evangelical). To me, chant has always been occult or New Age.

Pipe organ is also a tricky one. I tend to hear pipe organ as “classical music” or “concert hall music” rather than as “church music.” The Baptist church that I grew up with had organ (and piano), but the organ usually played hymns and gospel songs, not classical. We had one organist that would play classical pieces for the once-a-year “talent night” in which church musicians were encourage to perform secular pieces. But I never heard Bach or Buxtehude on the organ in church when I was growing up. I did hear these pieces at recitals that local organists used to give. So to me, that pipe organ is not necessarily liturgical. It would depend on the piece, and since I don’t have much knowledge of organ literature, I would probably tend to think “concert hall.”

OR horror. Pipe organs and horror movies are like peanut butter and jelly to me! Can’t have one without the other.

Again, I’m not trying to create dissention or be snarky. I’m only pointing out that general statements cannot be made about music nowadays, considering the great diversity in the United States. And many Catholics (those born after Vatican II) have little or no memory of any of the Catholic traditions.

For a Pentecostal who grew up hearing rock-gospel music in his/her church, and who wasn’t allowed to listen to secular rock at all, they would see rock music as church music, not secular. So “common opinion” is not really very reliable these days.

Perhaps the issue is defining what “common opinion” means.

 

[CTA1967]

Pipe organ is also a tricky one. I tend to hear pipe organ as “classical music” or “concert hall music” rather than as “church music.”

OR horror.

Or rock. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_to_the_Edge_(song)

 

[EvelynEVF]

I cheerfully stand corrected

I am also ex-protestant, but chant to me automatically says Catholic, or in certain tones, Orthodox. And the rock band at the AofG church I went to for a couple years always screamed masquerade.

It is hard, in such a diverse country, to make any statement that is true for more than a small group.

 

[benedictgal]

boldface mine. I respectfully disagree with the boldface statement above.

As an ex-Protestant, I do not recognize chant as liturgical. I didn’t know what liturgy was as a Protestant (evangelical). To me, chant has always been occult or New Age.

Pipe organ is also a tricky one. I tend to hear pipe organ as “classical music” or “concert hall music” rather than as “church music.” The Baptist church that I grew up with had organ (and piano), but the organ usually played hymns and gospel songs, not classical. We had one organist that would play classical pieces for the once-a-year “talent night” in which church musicians were encourage to perform secular pieces. But I never heard Bach or Buxtehude on the organ in church when I was growing up. I did hear these pieces at recitals that local organists used to give. So to me, that pipe organ is not necessarily liturgical. It would depend on the piece, and since I don’t have much knowledge of organ literature, I would probably tend to think “concert hall.”

OR horror. Pipe organs and horror movies are like peanut butter and jelly to me! Can’t have one without the other.

Again, I’m not trying to create dissention or be snarky. I’m only pointing out that general statements cannot be made about music nowadays, considering the great diversity in the United States. And many Catholics (those born after Vatican II) have little or no memory of any of the Catholic traditions.

For a Pentecostal who grew up hearing rock-gospel music in his/her church, and who wasn’t allowed to listen to secular rock at all, they would see rock music as church music, not secular. So “common opinion” is not really very reliable these days.

Perhaps the issue is defining what “common opinion” means.

Cat, with all due respect, you are relying too much on your Protestant background and not enough on what the Church’s stance on Sacred Music is. That is why, in all charity, I would suggest that you read and study what the Church says on the matter, including what the Popes have written. Just this past week, we celebrated the Memorial of Pope St. Gregory the Great who was responsible for reforming the liturgy and establishing chant as the official music of the Church about 15 centuries ago. Fast forward to 1903 and we have Pope St. Pius X who sought to purify the music of the Church from secular influences like theater and opera. Over 100 years later, even Pope John Paul II noted that the music used for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass continues to need purification. Pope Benedict XVI, in response to the very valid concerns of the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist, affirmed what he had already said as Cardinal Ratzinger when he wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis that:

1. In the ars celebrandi, liturgical song has a pre-eminent place. (126) Saint Augustine rightly says in a famous sermon that “the new man sings a new song. Singing is an expression of joy and, if we consider the matter, an expression of love” (127). The People of God assembled for the liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129). Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131).

He is not writing mere personal opinion here, as Sacramentum Caritatis constitute the Apostolic Exhortations of the Holy Father. He is writing as the Successor of St. Peter. While he may not be speaking ex cathedra, his words are invaluable.

Evelyn is right. If we were to have a gathering similar to what she suggested, then what is genuinely Catholic would bubble up to the surface. Chant has been used by the Church for centuries, regardless of what the Protestant ecclesial communities have been doing.

In fact, chant derives from Ancient Israel’s form of cultic worship, as the psalms were chanted. Chant even played a role in the Last Supper as the prayers used for the Passover were chanted.

What facts do you have to back up your claim that Catholics born after the Second Vatican Council have no knowledge of the Tradition of the Church? I was born after the Council as I believe others in this thread were and we have a good understanding of the Tradition of the Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

IWell, I don’t think anyone is arguing that everything is admissible into the church. The closest would be that some said there is no such thing as an innately unholy instrument (that would be dualism), which is still a far cry away.

The use of the rock band instruments, while I agree it is inappropriate for many reasons, is only inappropriate based on what you have said if you assess that those instruments are suitable only for secular music as dictated by common use and opinion. Now, I think that is indeed the case, but it isn’t something that can be assumed just because they are used in secular music. The text requires a judgement to be made, and a priori assumptions are not part of an honest judgement. There certainly seem to be some people who think rock bands might be good for the Mass, so common opinion is not totally united.

You did suggest that a number of other posters were taking on the authority of the Church for themselves, ignoring it, and went on to explain the role of Peter in the Church (as if they must not know it.) I’m glad you weren’t intending to suggest they were bad Catholics, but that is rather how it sounded.

As for my ecclesial community. Historically, Anglicanism has a very fine musical history, some very “catholic” and some more like simple hymns. There seems to be much less operatically styled music, which I suspect is because Anglicanism hasn’t been big in those countries where opera was popular.

N the Anglican Church in the West has much the same situation musically as the Roman Church in practice. It seems to have developed in much the same way - when the new liturgies based on the Liturgical Movement appeared, which are very similar to the RC ones, a lot of experimentation began, most of it with poor result. In fact they use much of the same stuff. It has had a similar effect, I would say, on those parishes that suffer from it. Direction depends very much upon individual Bishops.

One thing I have noticed, but it is anecdotal, is there seem to be a relatively large number of Anglican churches that have kept to a very traditional use of music in the liturgy compared to RC ones (not that they don’t exist too.). My own church for example sings the mass setting, usually polyphonically, the congregation sings the psalm in plainchant, we have a good organist who plays a voluntary (usually Bach) at the end, etc. This type of music often seems to correspond to using the traditional Anglican liturgy - much like the TLM but in very lovely Elizabethan English. And it’s not all old music, some is recently composed by fits into that tradition, while remaining contemporary. I have met many Roman Catholics who have had their first experience of music and liturgy done this way in an Anglican, rather than Catholic, church.

To me this suggest a strong tie between the form of the liturgy and how people respond to it musically. An example that comes to mind for me recently was a Catholic wedding I attending (an Anglican one would likely have been as bad, that’s just the most recent wedding I attended). I found the form and language of the marriage service and the Mass both lacking in inspiration, and the music, while it was well done, was very similar in character.

I am inclined to think that with the TLM done more, the music, even the newly composed stuff, will improve.

 

[pnewton]

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.

That’s what I was wondering. It is fine for us to disagree with the application of principles and surely that application varies.

 

[benedictgal]

That’s what I was wondering. It is fine for us to disagree with the application of principles and surely that application varies.

At the risk of sounding dumb, what is a howitzer? And don’t credit that to my orange blood.

 

[ac_claire]

One thing I have noticed, but it is anecdotal, is there seem to be a relatively large number of Anglican churches that have kept to a very traditional use of music in the liturgy compared to RC ones (not that they don’t exist too.).

My response is also anecdotal and sort of off-topic…but yeah, I have heard this before. It’s an interesting phenomenon.

I am inclined to think that with the TLM done more, the music, even the newly composed stuff, will improve.

I hope this is the case. I think the more that Catholics in general and younger people/composers in particular are exposed to traditional forms of music-- especially Gregorian chant-- the more the tide will start to turn in the right direction. You’ve got to whet their appetites for it though. Any kind of music that’s distinctly “modern” is on it’s way to being dated. The classics, however, (classic music and classic styles)…they’re always appealing when presented well.

 

[4Squarebaby]

At the risk of sounding dumb, what is a howitzer? And don’t credit that to my orange blood.

A big gun. It has specific characteristics which distinguishes it from other big guns but its irrevalent for this discussion.

 

[Bluegoat]

At the risk of sounding dumb, what is a howitzer? And don’t credit that to my orange blood.

It’s an artillery gun. They get used for gun salutes sometimes.

 

[benedictgal]

It’s an artillery gun. They get used for gun salutes sometimes.

Thank you and 4squarebaby. Don’t think it’s something I want for my parish, unless it comes time to demo it once we complete the new building.

 

[ibkc]

As an ex-Protestant, I do not recognize chant as liturgical. I didn’t know what liturgy was as a Protestant (evangelical). To me, chant has always been occult or New Age.

But now that you’re Catholic, you understand that chant is neither occult or New Age, right? You do “recognize” chant as liturgical, since you’re now Catholic. Right? Regardless of your opinion of chant, you no longer immediately think “OMG! Occult!” when you hear chant.

Right?

 

[Cat]

But now that you’re Catholic, you understand that chant is neither occult or New Age, right? You do “recognize” chant as liturgical, since you’re now Catholic. Right? Regardless of your opinion of chant, you no longer immediately think “OMG! Occult!” when you hear chant.

Right?

I understand it intellectually, right.

But emotionally, it is difficult to get rid of 47 years of habit. My mind tells me it’s OK, it’s Christian, but my emotions say, “CREEPY!”

The chanting that we have heard at various OF Masses is what I believe is called “plain chant.” (right name?) To me, this just sounds like typical chanting of announcements in any secular setting, or like that skit on Conan O’ Brien called “In The Year 3000.” It’s just singing of words. I do not find anything particularly spiritual about it because I’ve heard it in so many secular settings.

I’ve not heard any of the genuine Gregorian chant in Mass, except on CDs. And I have tried and tried to like it on CDs, and I honestly don’t. It doesn’t help that it’s in Latin and so I have to keep babelfishing the translation. Sorry.

And yes, I realize that my liking or disliking it is not the issue at all. If it’s appropriate for Mass because the Church says so, THAT’S the important thing. I understand that.

 

[Cat]

Cat, with all due respect, you are relying too much on your Protestant background and not enough on what the Church’s stance on Sacred Music is. That is why, in all charity, I would suggest that you read and study what the Church says on the matter, including what the Popes have written. Just this past week, we celebrated the Memorial of Pope St. Gregory the Great who was responsible for reforming the liturgy and establishing chant as the official music of the Church about 15 centuries ago. Fast forward to 1903 and we have Pope St. Pius X who sought to purify the music of the Church from secular influences like theater and opera. Over 100 years later, even Pope John Paul II noted that the music used for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass continues to need purification. Pope Benedict XVI, in response to the very valid concerns of the Fathers of the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist, affirmed what he had already said as Cardinal Ratzinger when he wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis that:

He is not writing mere personal opinion here, as Sacramentum Caritatis constitute the Apostolic Exhortations of the Holy Father. He is writing as the Successor of St. Peter. While he may not be speaking ex cathedra, his words are invaluable.

Evelyn is right. If we were to have a gathering similar to what she suggested, then what is genuinely Catholic would bubble up to the surface. Chant has been used by the Church for centuries, regardless of what the Protestant ecclesial communities have been doing.

In fact, chant derives from Ancient Israel’s form of cultic worship, as the psalms were chanted. Chant even played a role in the Last Supper as the prayers used for the Passover were chanted.

What facts do you have to back up your claim that Catholics born after the Second Vatican Council have no knowledge of the Tradition of the Church? I was born after the Council as I believe others in this thread were and we have a good understanding of the Tradition of the Church.

benedictgal, usually you’re very good about thoroughly reading the posts of others, but this time, I must not have made myself clear.

I completely understand that my Protestant background is not of any consequence in deciding which music is liturgically appropriate and which isn’t. I was not proposing that my opinions be taken into account.

What I was doing in my post was responding to EvelynEVF’s post in which she stated that most people would if they heard it, recognize chant and pipe organ as liturgical. She was referring to “most people,” a group of which I am a part. I was explaining to her that I do not automatically think “liturgical” when I hear any kind of chant or pipe organ music. I didn’t intend in any way to imply that my opinion is the opinion that should be used in determining music used in Mass.

I DID ask “What exactly does “common opinion” mean?” So you are answering this question by saying that “common opinion” refers to the Magisterium, the Holy Father and the bishops? Is this what you are saying?

I don’t really understand this. The Holy Father and the bishops are not “common,” at least, in my opinion. To me, “common opinion” refers to the general population in an area, and to me, this means that “common opinion” could vary depending on geographic location.

Finally, for the nth time, I HAVE read the documents that you keep quoting from. I have a different interpretation of them than you do. As others on this thread have pointed out, you take a very narrow view of the documents. But when I read the documents, I see that the everyday decisions regarding Mass music (instruments, publishers, styles, etc.) are left to the bishops, (or to the non-clergical experts that they hire because they trust them to make the correct decisions about music).

 

[Bluegoat]

benedictgal, usually you’re very good about thoroughly reading the posts of others, but this time, I must not have made myself clear.

I completely understand that my Protestant background is not of any consequence in deciding which music is liturgically appropriate and which isn’t. I was not proposing that my opinions be taken into account.

What I was doing in my post was responding to EvelynEVF’s post in which she stated that most people would if they heard it, recognize chant and pipe organ as liturgical. She was referring to “most people,” a group of which I am a part. I was explaining to her that I do not automatically think “liturgical” when I hear any kind of chant or pipe organ music. I didn’t intend in any way to imply that my opinion is the opinion that should be used in determining music used in Mass.

I DID ask “What exactly does “common opinion” mean?” So you are answering this question by saying that “common opinion” refers to the Magisterium, the Holy Father and the bishops? Is this what you are saying?

I don’t really understand this. The Holy Father and the bishops are not “common,” at least, in my opinion. To me, “common opinion” refers to the general population in an area, and to me, this means that “common opinion” could vary depending on geographic location.
.

I suspect that the best answer to “common opinion and use” is usually the people who will be attending the Mass, the authorities who are supposed to know about music like the music director, and the Bishops. In the end, the common opinion of the Baptists down the street isn’t that relevant, since they will not have to listen to it.

However, I think there are two ways that it could be important to consider even the local Baptists or other non-Catholics to some extent, from a common opinion perspective. If the proposed music was likely to scandalize other non-Catholics, it might be a good idea to stay away from it. This would be especially so if there was a high likelihood of converts, say in a setting where Catholicism was a minority religion. This is why Death Metal is never a good choice, no matter how well it manages to convey the right ideas

And related to that, if there was a high proportion of Protestant converts actually in the congregation, which sometimes happens, they would essentially represent a different cultural tradition. So in a congregation made up of people who had grown up believing/feeling plain chant was devilish, it might not be the best choice, even if they came to understand it’s place in the history of the Church. It is a real truth about music that it works on our emotions, often even when our intellectual understanding has changed.

One of the documents benidectgal posted alludes to this - that high (it says elitist but that seems very negative) forms of Church music should not be insisted on with populations for whom it places a wedge between the people and the liturgy. It specifically mentions the use of Latin possibly as doing this, but the musical style itself also seems to be implicated. So you shouldn’t drive people away in the name of giving them high culture.

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal, usually you’re very good about thoroughly reading the posts of others, but this time, I must not have made myself clear.

I completely understand that my Protestant background is not of any consequence in deciding which music is liturgically appropriate and which isn’t. I was not proposing that my opinions be taken into account.

What I was doing in my post was responding to EvelynEVF’s post in which she stated that most people would if they heard it, recognize chant and pipe organ as liturgical. She was referring to “most people,” a group of which I am a part. I was explaining to her that I do not automatically think “liturgical” when I hear any kind of chant or pipe organ music. I didn’t intend in any way to imply that my opinion is the opinion that should be used in determining music used in Mass.

I DID ask “What exactly does “common opinion” mean?” So you are answering this question by saying that “common opinion” refers to the Magisterium, the Holy Father and the bishops? Is this what you are saying?

I don’t really understand this. The Holy Father and the bishops are not “common,” at least, in my opinion. To me, “common opinion” refers to the general population in an area, and to me, this means that “common opinion” could vary depending on geographic location.

Finally, for the nth time, I HAVE read the documents that you keep quoting from. I have a different interpretation of them than you do. As others on this thread have pointed out, you take a very narrow view of the documents. But when I read the documents, I see that the everyday decisions regarding Mass music (instruments, publishers, styles, etc.) are left to the bishops, (or to the non-clergical experts that they hire because they trust them to make the correct decisions about music).

But, the Church is not governed by “common opinion”. That approach may work for some groups, but, not for the Church. When the Holy Father, through the appropriate Curial congregation (in this case, the CDWDS) issues a document, he is exercising his Petrine ministry of binding and loosening. In this case, he is binding, in that Musicam Sacram clearly makes distinction as to what is appropriate and what is not appropriate for the Mass.

With all due respect Cat, were you to actually have read the documents, you would find that there are certain parameters that should be followed. To simply wash our hands of any responsibility on our part and dump it all on the bishop is, as I see it, a cop out.

Surely, there is also responsibility borne by music directors, church musicians and pastors in this particular issue. The other problem is that even the resources used do not necessarily accurately reflect the official documents of the Church. Statements like Music in Catholic Worship and even Sing to the Lord are recommendations and not the official word of the Church, since even these documents somehow manage to contradict what Musicam Sacram say on the matter.

Even though you explained your interpretation of chant as “creepy”, I do take exception to this. Chant has been used by the Church for centuries. Even before that, it was the prayer of Ancient Israel.

 

[Bluegoat]

But, the Church is not governed by “common opinion”. That approach may work for some groups, but, not for the Church. When the Holy Father, through the appropriate Curial congregation (in this case, the CDWDS) issues a document, he is exercising his Petrine ministry of binding and loosening. In this case, he is binding, in that Musicam Sacram clearly makes distinction as to what is appropriate and what is not appropriate for the Mass.

With all due respect Cat, were you to actually have read the documents, you would find that there are certain parameters that should be followed. To simply wash our hands of any responsibility on our part and dump it all on the bishop is, as I see it, a cop out.

OK, now I am wondering if you have actually read the things you posted. The direction of the Church clearly stated that the judgement on individual instruments is to be based on common opinion and use. Do you think that somehow they have written it so as to be so obscure that it isn’t just unclear, it implies the opposite of what it really means? What would be the point of doing such a thing - to deliberately make people misunderstand? Do you think that when the Church directs that an issue is a matter of individual conscience, as it sometimes does, that actually means the opposite too, so we must somehow figure out what they REALLY mean and conform to it? That is just about as logical.

None of what you have said actually seems to bear any relation to the direction of the Church in the documents you are referring to. Which rather suggests that it is what you think, not the Church.

In fact, if it was all as clearly stated as you say, Cat would be quite right to wash her hands of the whole thing - her understanding of the direction would indeed be completely irrelevant.

 

[benedictgal]

OK, now I am wondering if you have actually read the things you posted. The direction of the Church clearly stated that the judgement on individual instruments is to be based on common opinion and use. Do you think that somehow they have written it so as to be so obscure that it isn’t just unclear, it implies the opposite of what it really means? What would be the point of doing such a thing - to deliberately make people misunderstand? Do you think that when the Church directs that an issue is a matter of individual conscience, as it sometimes does, that actually means the opposite too, so we must somehow figure out what they REALLY mean and conform to it? That is just about as logical.

None of what you have said actually seems to bear any relation to the direction of the Church in the documents you are referring to. Which rather suggests that it is what you think, not the Church.

In fact, if it was all as clearly stated as you say, Cat would be quite right to wash her hands of the whole thing - her understanding of the direction would indeed be completely irrelevant.

I stand by what I have written, despite whatever some may say to try to discredit or derail what I have written.

To simply dump the whole matter on the bishop of one’s diocese is to not want to share in the responsibility. Bluegoat, I have been in that position as a member of our diocesan liturgical committee. I have been a dumping ground for planning liturgies and when I’ve submitted what I’ve done for approval, I get a casual assent and nothing else. Would I want my ordinary and the priest designated to assist have a greater role in the planning and laying out of things? You bet I would. But, that is not always the case, at least down here, and, I suspect, in other areas. So, when I write, I write from experience. I don’t think anyone planning liturgies, selecting the music and whatnaught would be worth their salt if they did not consult the documents and do their homework, rather than simply blindly rely on what their bishop will say. Let me give you an example. During one Midnight Mass at the Cathedral, the wife of the bishop’s assistant (who is a cantor and plays guitar) had the bright idea to substitute the Gloria with Angels We Have Heard on High (yes, the actual Christmas carol). The bishop agreed to it even though it goes squarely against the norms. I told him that this was setting a bad precedent, but, he dismissed it. The Mass was broadcast live on the diocesan radio station. Needless to say, I was upset because what had been allowed was wrong.

A year later, when I went to help plan Midnight Mass at another parish, the priest had the same idea, justifying himself by saying that it was used at the cathedral. I showed him the GIRM and told him that we could not substitute the prayers of the Church for another song. I also told him that I had advised the bishop against doing that. Suffice to say, we did sing the correct Gloria.

This is not to say that I am criticizing the bishop. Do not misconstrue that. What I am saying is that the documents are there for all to see and read. If you do not get adequate direction from the top, rather than wash your hands of the whole thing, do some homwork. Take the initiative. Study the documents. You can never go wrong following the directives of the Holy See.

In fact, Redemptionis Sacramentum, while affirming that the bishop is the chief liturgical steward for his diocese, also affirms that the faithful have a right to a properly celebrated liturgy. This most assuredly also includes having music that is genuinely sacred and proper.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

What about congo drums? I have seen then used and it was bad. How about air guitar?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

As an ex-Protestant, I do not recognize chant as liturgical. I didn’t know what liturgy was as a Protestant (evangelical). To me, chant has always been occult or New Age.

.

You are Catholic now and Chant has a long history in the liturgy.