What do you think about guitars during mass?

[nancy_dalrymple]

This is begging the question. Indeed, it is true that instruments that are unsuitable for the Liturgy should not be used, but usually it is simply stated that guitars and drums are unsuitable, rather than demonstrated why this is the case

At the beginning of the 20th century, pianos were explicitly banned from use in the liturgy, because of their unsuitability. Why were they deemed not unsuitable? Not because of their sound, but because of their heavy association with the concert hall and bar/pub type settings. It is for a similar reason that the organ was not immediately adopted into Christian liturgies, because of its association with the orgiastic music of pagan worship.

I do believe that there is some association between electric guitars and basses and secular music, and as such they need to be used with extreme care and with sensitivity to the attitudes of the local community. Both the electric guitar and bass can be played in a manner that resembles their classical ancestors, but can also take advantage of the many ways of processing electronic sound in order to create a beautiful, harmonious sound that complements the other instruments. The same applies to the drum set – if used as a percussion kit, and the acoustics can support that sort of percussion, it can be an excellent addition to the music. Of course, this requires competent musicians, but so does the organ.

The manner in which these instruments are played is crucial. If a musician insists on playing any instrument as if they are at a rock concert, then they should not be permitted to play. As Benedict XVI wrote, rock is incompatible with the Liturgy. Rock is a style, a genre, a musical attitude – not a set of instruments.

This tension between organs and guitars, traditional and contemporary exists because of the difficulty of creating new art that is also inspired by the same spirit of the great Christian art that preceded it. Unfortunately, I think that most (myself included) respond to this tension in one of two ways – 1) lazily creating new art without doing the hard work of refining it and making sure that it is truly animated by the same Spirit which inspired the Gregorian chants or 2) only using or imitating the classic Christian works of art, because it is safe.

In terms of specific instruments, I will let the competent territorial authority make those decisions.

Any string instrument is OK I said so! and Psalms 33 does also! God loves music and his men that were the apples of his eyes loved music also. By the By I play guitar, it can be soothing I remember Dwane Eddy how he could make a guitar talk. Love of Christ Nancy PS WE have a guitar player in our church she is good.

 

[ibkc]

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.

Chant is one of the Church’s greatest gifts to the whole world’s legacy of art and culture. I am going to go out on a limb and risk offending some people here, but this idea that it is “devilish” or “occult” is extremely ignorant on several different levels. I know that’s what a certain type of American evangelical Protestant believes, but that doesn’t excuse it or make it anything but ignorant. The suggestion that the Church should avoid using chant in liturgy so that some converts won’t be spooked is pretty crazy to me. Actually, it makes me rather sick. Chant is part of the total package of the Church. When we convert (and I am a convert myself) we aren’t supposed to pick and choose what we accept and what we don’t. It’s a package deal, folks.

I am glad the suggestion is coming from another Protestant rather than a Catholic.

 

[FrancisB]

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. Also, based on your narrow view of what the church considers “sacred music”, a mass celebrated by an African congregation who uses drums and other native instruments would be profane in the eyes of God. 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!

This is so full of falsity that I need to correct it right now. I haven’t caught up, so I apologise if someone already has. The “Ave Verum Corpus” is not from the Mozart Requiem. It is a standalone motet that was written to be used in the church services. It is absolutely appropriate to use in church and is faithful to every decree of the church on music. It is written in the old style, in imitation of the Renaissance polyphonic works, with strings and organ doubling the choir. By strings I mean Violin I, Violin II, Viola, and Violoncello. No plucking, no strumming. And as “On Eagles Wings” holding up to that, well I suppose that it is an opinion. It is one that I do not share with you. I don’t even know “We are Called,” so I can’t really comment on it. But listen, “On Eagles Wings,” might be lovely to you, and maybe people will still like it in 100 years. I don’t think it’s anything to Mozart, who was arguably the greatest musical genius ever to live, but you are entitled to your thoughts on it. That said, “On Eagles Wings” has about as much to do with the liturgical tradition of the church as Van Morrison’s “Have I Told You Lately,” which I honestly think is a prettier song. “On Eagles Wings” sounds nothing like chant or polyphony and smacks of the syncopated rhythms of popular music. We just need to accept this. Hey, I play in a rock band, and I’m fine with rock music, but nothing that suggests rock music belongs in church. Let’s just be honest here. Even the moderates are on board with the no rock music in church thing.

And as for African drumming, you need to check yourself. African drumming is the sacred music of Africa. In Africa it stands to reason that the drums would be used to accompany the singing of the chants. I’m sure it would be strange at first to hear Gregorian chant and African drums, but that would be a valid translation of the musical traditions of Africa. You need to remember, however, that the use of African drums outside of the communities wherein it constitutes a true sacred tradition are not keeping the law. Just because the djembe is a holy instrument to certain people in western Africa, doesn’t mean that it is holy in North America or Europe. And let’s be honest, the guitar isn’t a holy instrument any place in the world. The Africans used drums as holy instruments for at least as long as we have any written record of their music. This has never been the case for the guitar anywhere. This is a complete red herring. Bongos a sacred instrument? Perhaps in the right context in sub-Saharan Africa. Guitar? Still no.

 

[4Squarebaby]

Chant is one of the Church’s greatest gifts to the whole world’s legacy of art and culture. I am going to go out on a limb and risk offending some people here, but this idea that it is “devilish” or “occult” is extremely ignorant on several different levels. I know that’s what a certain type of American evangelical Protestant believes, but that doesn’t excuse it or make it anything but ignorant. The suggestion that the Church should avoid using chant in liturgy so that some converts won’t be spooked is pretty crazy to me. Actually, it makes me rather sick. Chant is part of the total package of the Church. When we convert (and I am a convert myself) we aren’t supposed to pick and choose what we accept and what we don’t. It’s a package deal, folks.

I am glad the suggestion is coming from another Protestant rather than a Catholic.

I think the term being debated is “common usage” where as once a clarinet was in “common usage” in New Orleans Jazz bands but now the only common usage for clarinets are marching bands and symphonies.

He is saying no matter how the church, which is perhaps not native to an area uses chants or pipe organs the common usage of a pipe organ or chant is of the occult or pagan while the elite usage of the approved methods resides in the church.

 

[FrancisB]

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).

I wish to clarify this again. They are not forever binding; they are binding until they are overturned. This a matter of practice, not faith, so Pope Benedict XVI or any of his successors has the right to rewrite the rules. If our Holy Father says that guitars and pianos are to be allowed, then they are allowed. What I said is, the document does not die with the pope. Were that the case, Ecclesia Dei would have died with JPII, but it did not. They may be changed. This was not yet changed. The difference is immensely important even if the result is currently the same.

Also note, as I mention our Holy Father–he is an accomplished pianist. When have you seen him play piano at mass?

 

[FrancisB]

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.

And I respectfully need to inform you that your opinion on that matter is moot. It doesn’t matter what you recognise as liturgical. The Catholic Church recognises that chant is the most basic and correct form of liturgical music. There is nothing more liturgical to Catholicism than chant. The same may be said of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy (prohibitions on instruments are very strict in some of these churches–in fact the ROC was so strict that Igor Stravinsky wrote a Catholic mass rather than a ROC Divine Liturgy because he wanted to have instruments accompany the voices) and of Judaism. The reason is that Jewish chant is the origin of both Catholic and Orthodox chants. They have evolved over time so that different traditions exist, but at their core the same modes exist, the same rhythmic impetus exists, and the same ancient melodies remain embedded, if hidden, in the music. The crux of it is that your opinion doesn’t matter on the subject. The church has solemnly decreed over and over again that chant is the basis of liturgical music. You can associated with occultism if you want, but so long as you do you will be missing a full understanding of Catholic music.

 

[Bluegoat]

Chant is one of the Church’s greatest gifts to the whole world’s legacy of art and culture. I am going to go out on a limb and risk offending some people here, but this idea that it is “devilish” or “occult” is extremely ignorant on several different levels. I know that’s what a certain type of American evangelical Protestant believes, but that doesn’t excuse it or make it anything but ignorant. The suggestion that the Church should avoid using chant in liturgy so that some converts won’t be spooked is pretty crazy to me. Actually, it makes me rather sick. Chant is part of the total package of the Church. When we convert (and I am a convert myself) we aren’t supposed to pick and choose what we accept and what we don’t. It’s a package deal, folks.

I am glad the suggestion is coming from another Protestant rather than a Catholic.

Oh, good grief. You are offended because a poster doesn’t much like plainchant, although she specifically stated she understood and valued its place in the history of the Church?? Music is a medium that has often been valued, including in the Church, because it works very directly on the emotions. It can be dangerous for much the same reason. If a person has bad associations with a particular style of music, stemming from childhood, there is little chance they will ever be able to enjoy it, no matter what it’s redeeming qualities, or how much they come to appreciate it academically. Most people have experiences that illustrate this - I have a Bob Dylan song I can’t listen to without bursting into tears, and I am assured that Philip Glass has much musical merit, but he just gives me a headache.

As for my suggestion - that in a particular congregation that as a whole had this kind of association with plainchant, it might be best to avoid it - I don’t see anything that would disagree with that in any of the relevant documents, and much that would suggest that it was an important consideration. It also corresponds to the way the Church has historically approached cultures which have a quite different understanding/association for the symbols it uses - it adapts the symbols, even if only temporarily. And it very much relates to what St Paul tells us about not allowing practices and customs to become a stumbling block for other Christians - especially the “ignorant” ones.

You’ll also notice that although it is indeed affirmed that Gregorian Chant has a special place, it goes on to say it should be given pride of place when the liturgy is sung in Latin. Which is to say, in non-Latin liturgy, it need not be emphasized - though of course that would be fine too. It also makes a point of saying Latin should be positively avoided in situations where it is not culturally appropriate. That would very likely be the case in a congregation made up of fundamentalist converts, or indeed in many other situations. It would probably be important that they learn that chant (and Latin) have an important place in the Church. It would not be reasonable to insist that they find the sound of it uplifting. It’s like insisting they like strawberry ice-cream.

I don’t see that ANY person suggested that Church as a whole avoid chant. Although where I live, my Protestant congregation does a lot more of it than most of the Catholic ones, including the RC cathedral.

 

[FrancisB]

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).

You read Tra le Sollecitudini? And yet you have a different understanding of this:

“The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.”

My reading of that is that in the Latin Rite, we can’t use pianos or drum sets. Do you have an alternate understanding of this line?

I think perhaps you are still unwilling to submit to authority and are grasping at vagueness in the documents to try to justify an argument that is clearly against the main thrust of these documents. The documents aren’t actually about what instruments are allowed. They are about the pride of place of chant and sacred polyphony. The fact that these instruments have no role in either chant or sacred polyphony is what poses the problem to them. Music that has nothing to do with chant and polyphony is also a problem. Read the documents not just for the letter but for the intention. You will see that there is just no justification to read into them that any instrument is permissible.

And the cultural element that keeps being brought up is a red herring. The guitar, by the way, is not uniquely Spanish; in fact the Classical style guitar was developed over time in Spain, France, and Italy. The steel string acoustic is indigenous to the US. That doesn’t make it a sacred instrument. And non-Western Cultures aren’t at issue here. The Church in Africa was given indults to change many aspects of the mass throughout the ages because the sub-Saharan church is a missionary church. The same could be said of churches on American Indian reservations in the US. They are missionary in spirit, and therefore the Holy See usually grants them exceptions. They still need to apply for them, but they are usually granted. The matter at hand here is really the appropriateness of such music in the normal churches of the Latin Rite, which are mostly in Europe and the Americas. The guitar has no tradition of being involved in sacred music in these places.

Catholic music, like everything else, comes down to tradition. The tradition was broken in the late 1960s, but it wasn’t supposed to have been. JPII and Benedict have reminded us of that. So far people have cited exactly one singular beautiful story about the use of the guitar in mass before Vatican II, and in the story it is clear that the guitar was used because the normal instrument–the organ–was broken. Where is the evidence of a traditional use of guitar in mass before VII? I only ask this because neither VII nor any of the popes since then have officially changed things, but many things were broken in the “spirit of Vatican II” that had nothing to do with valid institutional change. I posit that this is one of them. So where is the pre-VII Catholic guitar tradition?

And, moreover, for those of you who insist on using the word “Classical”: most classical music is secular. Secular does not mean popular music. It means that it’s not religious. Classical guitar pieces as well as symphonies are secular music. That is, they were written for concerts and events outside of a religious service. Most classical guitar music is actually written in the dance forms of the time in which it was written. It was played in royal and noble courts for the aristocracy, or for professional dancers, to dance to it. Beautiful as it is, dance music is not appropriate for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It isn’t sacred in character; it is profane (which, again, is not to say bad or immoral, just not sacred).

 

[FrancisB]

Bluegoat, you’re Anglican, so I’ll cut you a little slack, but you’re also completely off base and misreading things.

First, “Latin Rite” doesn’t mean mass in Latin. It means Roman Catholic. We have other Catholic churches in communion with the pope who are not Roman Catholic. We call them the Eastern Rites collectively, but each has its own name, as in “Maronite Rite,” &c. So the language in which the mass is said has absolutely no effect on any of this. The phrase only means that in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, they don’t have to follow these rules (because they have their own liturgical and musical tradition that is unique and it would be unhealthy to that tradition for it to be forced to comply with that of the Roman (Latin) Rite).

Secondly, there is another document that needs to be considered when talking about Gregorian Chant. Voluntati Obsequens: adoremus.org/VoluntatiObsequens.html. It covers the minimum use of plainchant allowed in the mass. Paul VI sent this document along with a book of chant to all of the bishops and told them to educate the faithful and teach them to chant so that they could sing the plainchant of the mass. It makes it very clear that not chanting is not acceptable.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

You may stand by your opinion, but you haven’t been able to show how it corresponds to the documents you say inform it. That being the case, it might be worthwhile to consider that other approaches are not out in left field as much as you think, even if you don’t wish to adopt them.

I don’t think anyone has said the whole thing should be on the Bishop, only that he needs to provide leadership, and perhaps has the executive decision on matters, especially contentious ones. And of course he has a hand in who fills the other leadership positions in the diocese.

I would certainly expect that anyone who had a hand in choosing or directing music should have a strong knowledge of the relevant directives. It would be ideal if each individual musician did too and they ought to if they can, but I am not sure it is reasonable to ask them all to fill that role. For some it is very much outside their area of comfort or discernment.

Finding people, that is volunteers, to take on leadership and direction seems to be a problem in most ministries.

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat, you’re Anglican, so I’ll cut you a little slack, but you’re also completely off base and misreading things.

First, “Latin Rite” doesn’t mean mass in Latin. It means Roman Catholic. We have other Catholic churches in communion with the pope who are not Roman Catholic. We call them the Eastern Rites collectively, but each has its own name, as in “Maronite Rite,” &c. So the language in which the mass is said has absolutely no effect on any of this. The phrase only means that in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, they don’t have to follow these rules (because they have their own liturgical and musical tradition that is unique and it would be unhealthy to that tradition for it to be forced to comply with that of the Roman (Latin) Rite).

Secondly, there is another document that needs to be considered when talking about Gregorian Chant. Voluntati Obsequens: adoremus.org/VoluntatiObsequens.html. It covers the minimum use of plainchant allowed in the mass. Paul VI sent this document along with a book of chant to all of the bishops and told them to educate the faithful and teach them to chant so that they could sing the plainchant of the mass. It makes it very clear that not chanting is not acceptable.

It didn’t say Latin Rite, it said services sung in Latin. I do, in fact, know the difference. So you are simply off base on that objection.

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].

It does say further on that it has a role as an element of unity in all Roman services. However not that, “all other things being equal”, it demands pride of place. And all things being equal indicates that there are other considerations as well.

I’m afraid I don’t think the other document really says anything that contradicts anything else I have said. ( Also, it is not a directive document in the way the others as so far as I can see, so it seems to me that it doesn’t carry the same weight as the others.) And it does not indicate a minimum of plainchant allowed in the mass in the way that is suggested in your post - it is quite clear that the document does not see Masses without plainchant as breaking some sort of rule or even being inappropriate or undesirable. What is says is:

Our congregation has prepared a booklet entitled, “Jubilate Deo”, which contains a minimum selection of sacred chants.

It is perhaps a slightly confusing way to put it, given that it is clear that it can’t mean the minimum allowed. However, keep in mind that it was translated from the Latin. I would suggest that it is simply a slightly clumsy translation which intends to mean something like “a very small selection” or “the smallest (useful) selection possible”.

It specifically states that the booklet it is designed for those using the liturgy in Latin, which the Holy Father would like everyone to be able to do. And further on, as a much more direct command, that steps should begin to be taken to achieve this goal. It does not give a specific time line for doing so. The other document we have been discussing, on the other hand, says clearly that Latin would not be appropriate in all situations. How could this be? Is it not contradictory? How can we reconcile the two?

Well, the desire for all to be able to chant in Latin to at least some degree is expressed as a desire of the Holy Father, “frequently expressed”. It does not seem to be a command. Taking the two documents togetherr it seems that the ideal would be for all Latin Catholics to be able to sing some Latin chant together, as an instrument of unity among other things. However, practically speaking, singing the Mass in Latin may not be appropriate in some cases. It would be something, in that case, to work toward in the future.

It also expresses the hope that chant will be able to be sung in the vernacular, and that composers will rise to the occasion to create examples of vernacular chant, which may also include a specific cultural character . Clearly, it isn’t commanding composers to do so, and people can’t chant things that haven’t been composed. And it is still not saying that there are no other considerations, nor does it somehow contraindicate the documents which specifically say there may be other considerations.

 

[CTA1967]

Okay, I see everyone talking about how the Church is not governed by opinion. Here is the direct quote from Musicam Sacram, emphasis mine:

“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]

Obviously, opinion does play a part in this. Since common opinion doesn’t really seem to be defined, I think Cat’s perspective is a valid point. If things like chant and pipe organs are commonly used in secular culture, doesn’t that make them secular like any other instrument? Yes, they have a place in the history of the Church’s masses, but so do string instruments and winds, albeit to a lesser degree.

 

[benedictgal]

Okay, I see everyone talking about how the Church is not governed by opinion. Here is the direct quote from Musicam Sacram, emphasis mine:

Obviously, opinion does play a part in this. Since common opinion doesn’t really seem to be defined, I think Cat’s perspective is a valid point. If things like chant and pipe organs are commonly used in secular culture, doesn’t that make them secular like any other instrument? Yes, they have a place in the history of the Church’s masses, but so do string instruments and winds, albeit to a lesser degree.

This is what Cat wrote:

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.

While Musciam Sacram makes the distinction of the common territorial authority, it also makes very clear something that you did not highlight in your post:

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]

This does not mean that everything can be allowed to gallop into the barnyard. Guitars are a fairly recent innovation and they do not have the centuries of use that the organ has. The same holds true for the piano. Even Pope St. Pius X advocated that the piano not be used in the MP that he wrote back in 1903.

Please show us where string and wind instruments were used in the Mass prior to the latter 40 years of the 20th century. It seems to me that when Pope St. Pius X wrote Tra le Sollecitudini, he was trying to purify the liturgy from influences, albeit secular ones, like opera and theater. These would include string and wind instruments.

Note what he does say about instruments in the Mass:

1. The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.

Let’s leave out the piano for the purposes of this discussion. Pope St. Pius X clearly lists drums, cymbals, bells and the like as things that should not be used in church. Many will ask, well, why not the guitar? The guitar’s use, at that time, was, I believe, not as widespread as it is today. And, even when it was used, it was more along the lines of the popular songs of the day and not within the realm of sacred music.

 

[Cat]

And I respectfully need to inform you that your opinion on that matter is moot. It doesn’t matter what you recognise as liturgical. The Catholic Church recognises that chant is the most basic and correct form of liturgical music. There is nothing more liturgical to Catholicism than chant. The same may be said of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy (prohibitions on instruments are very strict in some of these churches–in fact the ROC was so strict that Igor Stravinsky wrote a Catholic mass rather than a ROC Divine Liturgy because he wanted to have instruments accompany the voices) and of Judaism. The reason is that Jewish chant is the origin of both Catholic and Orthodox chants. They have evolved over time so that different traditions exist, but at their core the same modes exist, the same rhythmic impetus exists, and the same ancient melodies remain embedded, if hidden, in the music. The crux of it is that your opinion doesn’t matter on the subject. The church has solemnly decreed over and over again that chant is the basis of liturgical music. You can associated with occultism if you want, but so long as you do you will be missing a full understanding of Catholic music.

I have made an error in wording in my posts and I wish to correct this error so as not to create confusion and give an incorrect impression of myself.

There are several meanings of the word “recognize.”

1. One meaning of the word “recognize” is associating names correctly to various people, objects, actions, etc.

When people see a picture of Pope Benedict XVI or meet him in person, many will “recognize” the man as Pope Benedict XVI.

But there will also be many who do not recognize him–i.e., do not know his name–when they see his picture or meet him in person. This is because they are not Catholics, or because they do not keep up with current events, or because they aren’t very good at identifying faces, or whatever. The fact remains that there are people who do not recognize Pope Benedict XVI.

Let’s simplify it–if you were to meet up with me this evening, most of you would not recognize me as “Cat” because you don’t know what I look like. You are “ignorant” of Cat’s appearance.

1. Another meaning of the word “recognize” is to ascribe the correct “place” to the people, objects, actions, etc. and more importantly, to agree with this place.

Catholics “recognize” Pope Benedict XVI as the Head of the Christian Church, the Church Militant, on this earth.

But Protestants (most) do NOT recognize the Pope as Head of the Christian Church. They “recognize” him as Head of the Catholic Church only. (They also do not “recognize” that the Catholic Church is THE Christian Church.)

Back when George W. Bush was President of the United States, many people refused to “recognize” (Meaning #2) him as their President. They recognized (Meaning #1) him–they knew who he was and what his name is. But they refused to “recognize” (Meaning #2) him as President.

---

**When I made the statement that I don’t recognize chant as liturgical, I was using the word “recognize” according to Meaning #1, above. **

Yes, I “recognize” (Meaning 2) chant as music that should have the place of honor in the Catholic Mass. I acknowledge this, I am in total agreement of this, I submit to this, I rejoice in this because it is what my Church teaches.

But when I hear chant, I do not necessarily recognize it (Meaning #1) as liturgical music because of my own ignorance and lack of familiarity with this music form,, just as many people in the U.S. would NOT recognize who Pope Benedict XVI is when they see an image of him or meet him in person.

I certainly hope this makes sense.

Meaning #1 is due to ignorance and lack of familiarity–many little children do not "recognize various plants and animals until they are older and more eduated. I am trying to become more familiar with liturgical music in the Catholic Church, but it’s not going to happen in a few years, after 47 years of Protestant gospel music. I think some of you who are steeped in liturgical tradition need to remember that many of the rest of us are not so knowledgeable.

This is the main reason why I rely on my bishop, priests, and their hired staff–I do not know much and I HAVE to be able to trust that others in the Church DO know these things. In particular, I have to be able to trust that the ordained clergy, who have been educated at seminary and in Rome, know more than most laypeople, and certainly know more than me.

And to be honest, I really have a difficult time accepting the teachings of people on an online forum whom I don’t even know and who have no history with me. I don’t “recognize” them as my authority (meaning #2). I DO recognize my bishop, priests, and their hired staff as my authorities. (Meaning #2).

Do some of you see my dilemma here? I’ve discussed it in a previous post. Some of you are telling me–who knows little to nothing–that my bishop and priests don’t know as much as you do. You’re asking me to believe that. But I don’t know you at all, and I do know my bishop and priests. Their lives and records of public service are open for all to know. They have EARNED my trust. With all due respect, most of you haven’t.

And I don’t think it’s really a good idea to tell Protestants to “go it on their own” and read documents and interpret them. I think this shows a huge lack of understanding of Protestant teachings, culture, and mindsets.

Yes, I’m Catholic now. But the Lord has not chosen to expunge 47 years of Protestantism from my mind. It’s all still there. So I’m going to have a very different viewpoint of authority than many Catholics, who can challenge their clergy and still remain faithful to the Church. It’s really difficult, as an ex-Protestant, to buy into that idea. For me and other Protestants (evangelicals), it’s black and white. There is no gray.

 

[FatTire]

It find the way they are used may or may not be conducive to worship. I believe they are not as useful as either an organ or piano, but where such things are lacking, they are fine.

Francis Cardinal Arinze on Modern music in the liturgy

“I will not now pronounce and say never guitar; that would be rather severe,” Cardinal Arinze added. “But much of guitar music may not be suitable at all for the Mass. Yet, it is possible to think of some guitar music that would be suitable, not as the ordinary one we get every time, [but with] the visit of a special group, etc.”

I totally agree, I know the Mass has totally strayed from the true form of traditional worship but let’s try to keep some sanctity to it. After all we haven’t totally become Protestant yet! We’ll have to wait to Vatican 3 to deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary so as not to offend the Protestants and other non-Catholic. Thank God for the Traditional and Eastern Rite Catholics!

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

I love the guitar and the piano, and I play both. I am a trained musician with a master’s degree in music. As part of my master’s degree, I did a study of the writings of the Vatican (papal, conciliar, and curial) about music. The answer to this whole discussion, as has been pointed out several times, is not a matter of preference. The guitar and the piano were both forbidden in the mass. Nothing ever changed that. The fact that statutes were ignored does not make them invalid or no longer binding. I shall quote here from a 1903 motu proprio by Pope St. Pius X (and please do not misunderstand my invoking his venerable name to indicate any association with the fringe group who uses; I am in full acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the Mass of Paul VI, when it is said according to the rubrics). The document is entitled “Tra le Sollecitudini” and it says:

“2. Sacred music should consequently possess, in the highest degree, the qualities proper to the liturgy, and in particular sanctity and goodness of form, which will spontaneously produce the final quality of universality. **It must be holy, and must, therefore, exclude all profanity not only in itself, but in the manner in which it is presented by those who execute it.**It must be true art, for otherwise it will be impossible for it to exercise on the minds of those who listen to it that efficacy which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her liturgy the art of musical sounds.”

It continues, later

“VI. Organ and instruments
15. 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 proper safeguards, other instruments may be allowed, but never without the special permission of the Ordinary, according to prescriptions of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. 16. As the singing should always have the principal place, the organ or other instruments should merely sustain and never oppress it…
18. The sound of the organ as an accompaniment to the chant in preludes, interludes, and the like must be not only governed by the special nature of the instrument, but must participate in all the qualities proper to sacred music as above enumerated. **19. The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.**20. It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the place provided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ…”

Now certainly the document predates the council, but Musicam Sacram (quoted earlier in the thread and issued under the reign of the same Pope Paul VI who promulgated the mass) clearly reiterates the same points. The missives of the motu proprio were never condemned or altered by subsequent popes, but were consistently upheld, so I gather that they must be in effect to this day.

The piano and percussion instruments are forbidden by name. Neither I nor anyone else has to debate whether or not they are allowed; they are expressly forbidden. I have heard the piano and other forms of percussion throughout the mass far too many times to count, but they are not now, nor were they allowed, no matter how much you like them or hate them.

As for the guitar, it is always a harder matter. St. Pius X prohibits “profanity not only in itself, but in the manner in which it is presented by those who execute it.” The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship writes in Musicam Sacram: “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.” Both of these send the same message, as far as I read them: anything that belongs to secular music–and not that is not the same as popular music; the banjo, the accordion, and the tin whistle all seem equally as applicable–is forbidden at the mass. That begs the question: is the guitar suitable for “secular music only”? And, when you search your heads, you’ll be hard pressed to find examples of sacred guitar music. Sure, there was “Stille Nacht” (“Silent Night”), but that was a unique circumstance. What else is there? The guitar was created for folk music, adopted by classical music for use in the courts of Western Europe, used for a lot of dance music of many genres, none of which was sacred, and then brought into Jazz and then the other American Popular music styles.

Inside your hearts, I’m sure you all know the guitar is a secular instrument. I don’t really have to make the argument. It’s not about whether or not you like the guitar, piano, etc. It’s not about how much you love the organ. The question really shouldn’t even be “What do you think about guitars during mass.” We are Catholic, and we are obedient. They’re just not supposed to be there, no matter how good hearted and talented the musicians are.

Now if you’d like to send them to me, I’d be happy to teach them all to chant.

:shrug:What’s the use POMPOUS !

 

[CTA1967]

Please show us where string and wind instruments were used in the Mass prior to the latter 40 years of the 20th century. It seems to me that when Pope St. Pius X wrote Tra le Sollecitudini, he was trying to purify the liturgy from influences, albeit secular ones, like opera and theater. These would include string and wind instruments.

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.

newadvent.org/cathen/10657a.htm

Keep in mind, this is from 1911, so it doesn’t include more recent changes like Musicam Sacram.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Things have changed since the days of St. Pius X. What St. Pius X about wrote guitars wasn’t doctrine, it was custom during the time. It wasn’t an infallible document (and never could be, as it doesn’t deal with faith or morals).

Really though, why do we have to get so worked up over what instruments are used at Mass? There are much bigger problems in this world.

He is very much a Saint. He was canonized in 1954. Writing “Pope St. Jimbob” is what is usually done to refer to a canonized Pope.

HI Metal Mark, One thing I cannot stand is people who down size others because of their age or sex. I think you are very intelligent and I love the guitar and we have a lady who sings and play’s every Mass everyone loves her. The Monk’s of Weston Priory also use guitars so do thier songs and albums I alway’s liked them. I don’t think loud instruments are right but you can play any instrument and play it for the Lord. God bless you Love of Christ Nancy

 

[CTA1967]

The guitar’s use, at that time, was, I believe, not as widespread as it is today. And, even when it was used, it was more along the lines of the popular songs of the day and not within the realm of sacred music.

Nearly a century before Pius’ statement, there was this famous piece of music written by a Catholic priest for guitar: stillenacht.info/en/silent-night/origin.asp?dat=index&id=38

So I would assume the “string instruments” tolerated by Annus qui nunc vertentem included the guitars of the time.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

I’m fine with getting worked up over the Mass if something seriously wrong is going on at Mass. Guitars are a minor issue and we shouldn’t worry about it like would with something extremely serious.

Well said Metal Mark!