What do you think about guitars during mass?

[FrancisB]

I’m still not sure about that. Musicam Sacram sounds a lot like something that replaced Pope St. Pius X’s statement. I mean, are all the rules condemning and allowing trombones and such from previous centuries still in effect?

St. Pius X’s motu proprio changed the previous decrees about brass instruments (if this had not happened earlier; I don’t know). He says that some string instruments and some wind instruments may be used sparingly in the mass (the wording makes it clear that he is referring to chamber orchestras for major feasts, not folk ensembles for one mass a week). Read the document again. And Musicam Sacram didn’t permit anything that St. Pius X had banned. If it did, it being the more recent document, it would have the authority to change the rules. But I don’t see anything in it that contradicts St. Pius X. And John Paul II made remarks (earlier cited by another poster) in 2003 that praised Tra le Sollecitudini on its 100th anniversary, further implying that it was still in effect. Why make a big fuss about a dead document’s 100th birthday? Because it’s not dead, of course, but still binding on the church. Again, our Holy Father could release another document tomorrow that changes all of this, but unless and until he does, we are bound by it.

 

[benedictgal]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the opinion that matters is not the people’s. It is the bishops (he’s the authority in his area). And the bishop is still bound to tradition and in obedience to the will of Rome. That is, whenever there is a question as to what should be done, the bishop should make the decision, but still the bishop does not have the right to overrule the decrees of popes, even dead ones. Only the pope or a council could do that, and they haven’t yet.

That is true. Obedience is a two-way street. Just as we are bound to obey the bishop, he, too, is bound to obey the Holy Father. And, when the bishop issues a decree, it should be done, as I have read the documents, in light of the Tradition and teachings of the Church.

A bishop, in theory, should not act as though he is on an island. Especially, in this day and age, when everything is virtually available at our fingertips, it is best to issue a decree after studying all of the relevent, authoritative documents of the Church.

Common opinion, as I read what is said in Musicam Sacram, does not simply factor in what is held at the present. Like fashion, these are trends that change, sometimes on a seasonal basis or whenever a new fad comes into being. Common opinion, I believe, factors in a sense of the historical element. When evaluating an instrument, looking at its history and primary reason for usage should play a strong role in rendering an opinion.

Let’s take the electric guitar. I do not think that Les Paul invented the electric guitar so that it could be played at a church service. It was one of the instruments that heralded rock and roll. While drums have been used for centuries as an instrument of the military, I do not imagine that the intent was ever to include them into Christitan worship (as used in the West). Drums evolved into secular musical use through the years. In fact, in his MP, Pope St. Pius X specifically stated that these were not fit for use in the Liturgy.

 

[pnewton]

But, the Church is not governed by “common opinion”. That approach may work for some groups, but, not for the Church.

No, but the phrase “common opinion” is used in this one instance. Therefore, it must mean something. I have always considered the word “common” to be an adjective meaning “common”. Therefore if a bishop allows guitars or pianos because he takes this definition at face value, he is not violating any thing the Church has said.

No, we do not rule by consensus, but the bishop has the right to consider the consensus in what he allows.

 

[pnewton]

I wish to clarify this again. They are not forever binding; they are binding until they are overturned.

But each item does not have to be overturned by a line veto item by item. You may not believe that Musicam Sarcram is now the defining document the we go by, but there are a lot of bishops that do not seem to think so. Perhaps that would be a good canon law question.

In the meantime, does anyone live in a diocese where the bishops has banned pianos based on Pope Pius?

 

[pnewton]

“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.

You think Eagle’s Wing’s is rock music?

BTW - I know it is not polyphony or chant, but that is not required. I know I read that somewhere in a letter by Pope Benedict. I can not remember where, but it was posted here and dealt with the tension between creativity and tradition.

Anyone remember?

 

[Cat]

That is very clear; I’m sorry I misunderstood you. That said, you need to understand what we’ve been saying. I’m not asking you to believe me because I said something on the forum. **** (shortened by Cat for space purposes–please read Post # 296 for entire quote from FrancisB)

Referring to quote above–FrancisB (and benedictgal, too)–this is a big problem for Protestant converts, especially those from the evangelical Protestant ecclesial bodies.

The reason we remained Protestant is because we read the Bible and “saw for ourself.”

That is the hallmark of evangelical Protestants, specifically Baptist evangelical Protestantism. Reading it ourselves. Studying it ourselves. Arriving at conclusions ourselves.

Oh, excuse me–I meant “ourselves” and the Holy Spirit, because after all, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth.

That’s why when you ask an evangelical how to become a Christian, every one of them will give you a different answer–the Holy Spirit is “guiding them into all truth.” (Snicker, oh brother.) Some say that you merely believe, some say that you believe and pray a Sinner’s Prayer, some say that you believe and ask Jesus into your heart, some say that you believe and give testimony before men, some say that you believe and speak in tongues, some say that you believe and manifest good works, some say that you believe and are baptized, and some say that you have to do ALL of those things to be saved!

The one common word in the polyglot of salvation methods is “believe.” But even though Catholics believe in Jesus, many evangelicals will say that the Catholic Church is not a true “Christian” church.

That’s what comes of reading and studying and drawing conclusion “ourselves”–confusion. That’s why this thread is wazoo pages long, and why there is no agreement.

And the funny–ha ha–thing is, we evangelicals weren’t really really drawing conclusions “ourselves.” We were drawing the conclusions that our pastors and teachers told us to draw.

You see, FrancisB and benedictgal, I just can’t do that again. No, never. Already, I have read many of the documents that benedictgal quotes from, and I have drawn an entirely different conclusion than YOU! It’s happening again, and it scares me.

Of course, you can both rightfully tell me that I am not looking at the documents with Catholic eyes and mind–well, you’re darn tootin’ right! I was Protestant for most of my life and that’s not just going to go away, especially in this era when there is a great deal of diversity (lack of unity) in the Catholic Church at the local levels. No, I don’t have the background that you have and I’m not just going to suddenly pick it up and think and act like you. I will bring different things to the table than you, and these things WILL color my interpretation and there is not a whole lot I can do about that.

You say that the bishops are wrong to allow pianos and other instruments. Again, do you realize what you are saying to me, an ex-evangelical? You are implying that I need to forget what the bishops say and go back to “doing it myself?”

And you are asking me, an ignorant, inexperienced (at Catholic ways, anyway) ex-Protestant to read the documents–well, I have, and I came to totally different conclusions than you, and this was before I ever joined CAF and had any prejudices one way or another!

The bishops have not only read and studied the various documents, they have read and studied them IN CONTEXT with all other aspects of leading the Church at the local levels. They know a whole lot more than you do. Of course they make mistakes, but the idea that they allow pianos and other instruments because they are busy with other things is just silly, IMO. It would be the easiest thing for them to rid the parishes of these instruments, and they don’t do it. You can’t tell me that they are wrong and you two are right. I think that you’re both missing something here, and I, an ignorant Protestant, cannot tell you specifically you are missing. But there is more to it than just the documents you quote, or the bishops would not allow the United States to wallow in incorrectness in our parishes.

So you tell me that this is all wrong, that I should “Read 'em again,Cat, and this time, draw the correct conclusions?” (meaning, the conclusions that you two have drawn)

No.

I will not do this. When I used to read, study, and draw my own conclusions,
it put me on the fast road to hell. I believed in sola Scriptura and predestination and the snow-covered dunghill and justification through faith alone and sin is sin with no difference between murder and snitching an extra brownie from Mom’s plate of brownies and that Holy Communion was just a symbol and baptism was only for believers and that believers didn’t need to confess their sins to a mere man…

I believe that God would have been merciful to me, and that He is merciful to all evangelical Protestants who are ignorant of the Holy Mother Church. But I still think it was very shaky ground, and it certainly isn’t the glorious Church of Christ that the Catholic Church is.

No, a thousand times no, I will not read and study and draw conclusions on my own. Unless they direct me into obvious sin, I will trust the men that the Lord Jesus has established in the positions of authority in His Church. I will wait for my bishop to tell me the truth, and I will completely abide by HIS teaching and submit myself to HIM without fear of being incorrect about the Mass.

 

[Bluegoat]

Common opinion, as I read what is said in Musicam Sacram, does not simply factor in what is held at the present. Like fashion, these are trends that change, sometimes on a seasonal basis or whenever a new fad comes into being. Common opinion, I believe, factors in a sense of the historical element. When evaluating an instrument, looking at its history and primary reason for usage should play a strong role in rendering an opinion.

In the discussion of “common opinion and use” it’s been suggested several times that it likely includes historical use of the instrument under question.

It does not seem to mean only that - if so, it would have said “suited to secular music only, based on the historical opinion and use of the Church.”

It rather boggles me that various people keep posting a direction which says that common opinion and use is a factor, and then go on to state boldly that the Chuirch does not care about common opinion and use is. Surly If the hierarchy has the authority to say what people must do, it has the authority to tell them to make a decision based on some local considerations. For that matter, if they sent out a document saying - do whatever John Smith says - then that would have authority too.

 

[FrancisB]

But each item does not have to be overturned by a line veto item by item. You may not believe that Musicam Sarcram is now the defining document the we go by, but there are a lot of bishops that do not seem to think so. Perhaps that would be a good canon law question.

In the meantime, does anyone live in a diocese where the bishops has banned pianos based on Pope Pius?

It isn’t an either/or situation. There are more than these two documents. There are, in fact, a whole group of them. I’m only quoting the 1903 MP because it is the clearest. It has been repeated in similar manner for the last 100+ years. It’s not Musicam Sacram or Tra le Sollecitudini. It’s Musicam Sacram and Tra le Sollecitudini.

Furthermore, when Musicam Sacram talks of common opinion, it doesn’t mean the bishop polls his flock and makes a democratic decision. It means that the instruments that everyone knows to be secular instruments (i.e. the guitar and the piano) are still not allowed. Common opinion of these instruments is that they are used in rock, jazz, and other styles of popular music. The guitar is very clearly secular. Where is the tradition to suggest otherwise? The problem with this idea of common opinion, I suppose, is that if abuse is allowed to go on long enough, people’s opinions on the matter might actually change. 300 years of guitar in church might make it seem sacred. 40 years does not.

I want you to consider this: why is it that in the movies and on television do they almost invariably use chant, polyphony, Latin text, and an organ to conjure up images of Catholicism? Doesn’t that in and of itself suggest that the popular culture still regards these things as the normal music for worship in the church? Now I know that movies and television shows are not binding on practice in any way, but if we are talking about common opinion, it seems clear that even in modern American culture, if you hear chant, you think Catholic. If there’s a pipe organ, you think church. If there’s guitars playing, you think some kind of celebration or concert or people having fun around a campfire–i.e. it’s always secular.

 

[FrancisB]

You think Eagle’s Wing’s is rock music?

BTW - I know it is not polyphony or chant, but that is not required. I know I read that somewhere in a letter by Pope Benedict. I can not remember where, but it was posted here and dealt with the tension between creativity and tradition.

Anyone remember?

I think it’s folk rock, or at least that’s how I’ve usually heard it performed: two-three guitars, a bass guitar, maybe (cringe) a drum set, and a few people singing in tight harmony like Peter Paul and Mary. From a musicological standpoint, the rhythms used throughout the song are indicative of rock music, not traditional American folk music, and certainly not the standards of traditional Catholic music. And as for the creativity vs. tradition thing, some of us have studied composition and learnt to write polyphony. It’s the same thing that Catholic musicians have been doing for years–studying music at music schools. I, personally, resent the fact that those of us who actually went to school for music and would like to be providing proper music from people with proper training are constantly forced out of the “music ministry” (i.e. what is supposed to be the schola cantorum and choir, but isn’t) by third rate guitar players who want to sing songs written 20-30 years ago as though they are still relevant. They aren’t. The problem with popular music is that it stops being popular after a while. The good thing about traditional music is that it remains traditional. So yes, there is room for new music to be written. Arvo Pärt is still writing in a modern-traditional style. So are Morten Lauridsen and Krzysztof Penderecki . These people are modern composers writing creatively within the Catholic tradition. They look to chant and polyphony, but they use harmonies and metric concepts that are foreign to the Renaissance. That’s something that’s difficult to do–that’s why we have trained composers not singer/songwriters doing the job. You do realise that all of the people involved in the writing of sacred polyphony throughout the centuries were highly trained men and women who studied composition for many years before they started writing church music, don’t you? This concept that untrained musicians should be writing music is, quite frankly, insulting to those of us who did study it. And there are plenty of us in the pews seething that we have been told that are gifts aren’t wanted. Michael Joncas has his degrees in liturgy, not music composition. He should be focused on liturgy and not on notes. And he should have noticed that writing guitar music for church was against the liturgy he was supposed to be studying.

I know I’m going to be attacked for saying things so blunty; I’ll live with that. All I really mean to suggest is that the non-trained musicians should follow the trained ones. That people who have a little talent, little to no training, and a burning desire to make music at mass should be put under the wing of people who have lots of training and talent. People with master’s degrees or doctorates in music. Of course, that would mean we’d have to pay them better, but the level of music would improve with that. I guarantee that if you insisted that only people with a BM and preferably an MM or DMA were in charge of the music in the churches, this whole discussion would go away, because the proper music and the instruments proper to it would return to the church.

 

[FrancisB]

In the discussion of “common opinion and use” it’s been suggested several times that it likely includes historical use of the instrument under question.

It does not seem to mean only that - if so, it would have said “suited to secular music only, based on the historical opinion and use of the Church.”

It rather boggles me that various people keep posting a direction which says that common opinion and use is a factor, and then go on to state boldly that the Chuirch does not care about common opinion and use is. Surly If the hierarchy has the authority to say what people must do, it has the authority to tell them to make a decision based on some local considerations. For that matter, if they sent out a document saying - do whatever John Smith says - then that would have authority too.

So if a congregation of Beatles’ fans wants to get together and have a mass of Beatles’ music (with the words changed to the mass texts), that would be acceptable? What about a heavy metal mass? Hardcore mass? Gansta Rap mass? Surely there has to be more than opinion, especially when the flock was led astray. Common opinion cannot undo 2000 years of tradition. It can only resolve issues that are uncertain. For instance, is it okay to play violin at mass? Well, in the past it has been at some points and not at others. Common opinion probably would say that it is reasonable to be allowed to use the violin at mass. But when we talk about the guitar–at least the electric and steel-string acoustic varieties-- they are no more fitting than the banjo, which is to say, not at all. Perhaps the argument for the nylon-string classical guitar is more complex, since it is far removed from popular music these days, but there is still no body of truly sacred music written for the guitar. That’s the other problem that no one seems to want to address: the guitar doesn’t have traditional music associated with it because it has no place in the tradition. It has one song. One song. I can cite more liturgical music written for the harmonium. Fortunately for all of us, the new translation is going to cause a lot of this guitar music to be invalid, and the new translations don’t even try to preserve the same number of syllables, so the Sanctus and Gloria settings that we’ve had are going away.

I want those of you who like this guitar music to do me a favour: look through the guitar music hymnals and keep a careful eye on when things were written, who wrote them, and where the words were taken from. Most of the lyrics are distortions of the Bible texts because Bible texts didn’t conform to the proper syllable counts they needed to make them fit into verse/chorus schemes. That’s why chant and polyphony don’t have verse/chorus schemes 90% of the time–because the traditional Bible texts don’t work with that. Another major source of lyrics is the composer. The composers of the tradition never wrote their own words. They picked prayers that others had written and had been approved by the church and they set them to music. This is substantially different from making up a song about God and presenting it as suitable for church. Then there are some really strange places that the lyrics are taken from–I’ve even seen two whose texts were taken from the Vedas and the Upanishads (the Hindu scripture). In short, look critically at the music that you are being given and then ask yourself, is this really appropriate for the mass, when we have a tradition of chant and polyphony?

 

[ibkc]

I think it’s a question of education. A little education goes a long way towards making people feel comfortable. Those of you who are steeped in love of tradition and liturgy would do well to admit that many Catholics are not like you, and they need to be wooed, not battered.
… ]
EDUCATION is the way to eliminate ignorance. I think that education, combined with a GRADUAL introduction of various traditional liturgical styles and pieces, would go a long way toward preventing resentment, confusion, and conflict, and helping all the modern-music lovers like me (and many others) to become assimilated into “traditional music” and to learn to love and yes, enjoy it.

THIS, my dear Cat, is the point. There must be education. I think it does converts a terrible disservice when they are allowed to ignore crucial pieces of Catholic culture.

But it does help if the convert is willing. I will point out that in your specific case, the help is there, and has been offered repeatedly - and repeatedly repudiated, by you. Think of all the energy you spend on this forum explaining why you can’t learn and can’t like the Church’s sacred music. If a year ago, you had redirected even a quarter of that energy into opening your mind and learning a little about it, you would already be well on your way. I pray that you will someday see this.

 

[CWBetts]

So if a congregation of Beatles’ fans wants to get together and have a mass of Beatles’ music (with the words changed to the mass texts), that would be acceptable? What about a heavy metal mass? Hardcore mass? Gansta Rap mass? Surely there has to be more than opinion, especially when the flock was led astray. Common opinion cannot undo 2000 years of tradition. It can only resolve issues that are uncertain. For instance, is it okay to play violin at mass? Well, in the past it has been at some points and not at others. Common opinion probably would say that it is reasonable to be allowed to use the violin at mass. But when we talk about the guitar–at least the electric and steel-string acoustic varieties-- they are no more fitting than the banjo, which is to say, not at all. Perhaps the argument for the nylon-string classical guitar is more complex, since it is far removed from popular music these days, but there is still no body of truly sacred music written for the guitar. That’s the other problem that no one seems to want to address: the guitar doesn’t have traditional music associated with it because it has no place in the tradition. It has one song. One song. I can cite more liturgical music written for the harmonium. Fortunately for all of us, the new translation is going to cause a lot of this guitar music to be invalid, and the new translations don’t even try to preserve the same number of syllables, so the Sanctus and Gloria settings that we’ve had are going away.

I want those of you who like this guitar music to do me a favour: look through the guitar music hymnals and keep a careful eye on when things were written, who wrote them, and where the words were taken from. Most of the lyrics are distortions of the Bible texts because Bible texts didn’t conform to the proper syllable counts they needed to make them fit into verse/chorus schemes. That’s why chant and polyphony don’t have verse/chorus schemes 90% of the time–because the traditional Bible texts don’t work with that. Another major source of lyrics is the composer. The composers of the tradition never wrote their own words. They picked prayers that others had written and had been approved by the church and they set them to music. This is substantially different from making up a song about God and presenting it as suitable for church. Then there are some really strange places that the lyrics are taken from–I’ve even seen two whose texts were taken from the Vedas and the Upanishads (the Hindu scripture). In short, look critically at the music that you are being given and then ask yourself, is this really appropriate for the mass, when we have a tradition of chant and polyphony?

Again, you are making putting words into the mouths of those who disagree. I myself have said that rock bands are unacceptable. I merely suggest that you can play a hymn on an organ, or a guitar, or a piano, or whatever and it makes no real difference. I am not talking about contemporary music. I am not talking about secular music with “Catholicized” lyrics. I am talking about exactly the same music, with the same lyrics, but played on a different instrument. There is absolutely nothing in any of the documents you have quted that addresses this. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[benedictgal]

Again, you are making putting words into the mouths of those who disagree. I myself have said that rock bands are unacceptable. I merely suggest that you can play a hymn on an organ, or a guitar, or a piano, or whatever and it makes no real difference. I am not talking about contemporary music. I am not talking about secular music with “Catholicized” lyrics. I am talking about exactly the same music, with the same lyrics, but played on a different instrument. There is absolutely nothing in any of the documents you have quted that addresses this. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

There is something in the documents. With all due respect, you have chosen to ignore them and, have, in turn, opted to turn a blind eye to what the documents say and quote scriptural passages that are totally irrelevent.

Musicam Sacram notes that:

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

Tra le Sollecitudini, which, to my knowledge, has not been abolished, notes that:

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.

Please note what Pope John Paul II wrote in his letter marking the 100th anniversary of the document written by Pope St. Pius X:

1. On various occasions I too have recalled the precious role and great importance of music and song for a more active and intense participation in liturgical celebrations[9]. I** have also stressed the need to “purify worship from ugliness of style, from distasteful forms of expression, from uninspired musical texts which are not worthy of the great act that is being celebrated”[10], to guarantee dignity and excellence to liturgical compositions**.

In this perspective, in the light of the Magisterium of St Pius X and my other Predecessors and taking into account in particular the pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council, I would like to re-propose several fundamental principles for this important sector of the life of the Church, with the intention of ensuring that liturgical music corresponds ever more closely to its specific function.

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.

So then, if you are calling those of us who support what the Pontiffs and the Holy See have written as blind, then, I shudder to think what you call the Pontiffs and the Holy See, as they are the authors of the documents.

 

[FrancisB]

Again, you are making putting words into the mouths of those who disagree. I myself have said that rock bands are unacceptable. I merely suggest that you can play a hymn on an organ, or a guitar, or a piano, or whatever and it makes no real difference. I am not talking about contemporary music. I am not talking about secular music with “Catholicized” lyrics. I am talking about exactly the same music, with the same lyrics, but played on a different instrument. There is absolutely nothing in any of the documents you have quted that addresses this. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

But this music doesn’t have parts for the guitar. The music was written for specific instruments, and it cannot be easily converted to other instruments. Playing a piece written for the organ on the piano is certainly possible sometimes, provided that the pedal parts and the left hand manuals can be reconciled, but this is only possible in the simplest music. There are no guitar chords written for the traditional hymns, and even hymns are not overly appropriate for use in the mass. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth specifically. Some people have been suggesting, though, that any music that praises God is appropriate for church, and this is not true. Even hymns are a delicate issue. There are commonly four hymns that make up the bulk of the music at church, and the only one that is completely appropriate is the closing hymn because there is no other music that is approved for that place. The other three are replacing Gregorian chants, which are the norm. This practice is licit, as the rubrics say in each case that the music should be a) the chant or b) another approved piece of music. That said, always opting to use the non-traditional option is another example of how all of these options are destroying the sense of tradition.

Back to the instrument, though. If we are going to sing Gregorian chant, there is no guitar part for the chant. It would be beyond the scope of most untrained guitarists to write one, and no trained composers seem interested. In polyphony, the guitar is not capable of playing, unless we get four guitars each playing a single line. This is noted in the professional study of counterpoint, where the guitar is allowed to break what musicians consider “rules” or composition because of its very nature. The guitar is unique in its playing style, and does not allow itself to work within the traditions of either sacred or classical music very well. Yes, there is classical guitar music, but this music does not follow the same rules as the rest of the classical literature because of the nature of the guitar. It is not an organ substitute; it can’t play the same things. So the whole idea of “traditional” music with the guitar is a strange one to me. I’ve never heard anyone play guitar while singing in Latin (the vast majority of the truly traditional music is in Latin), except for the Christmas album that I recorded in college with my rock band of fellow Catholics. So, again, I challenge you-- find me this traditional Catholic guitar music, other than Stille Nacht.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

They suck!

So do lemon’s but in lomonade they are OK!

 

[CWBetts]

But this music doesn’t have parts for the guitar. The music was written for specific instruments, and it cannot be easily converted to other instruments. Playing a piece written for the organ on the piano is certainly possible sometimes, provided that the pedal parts and the left hand manuals can be reconciled, but this is only possible in the simplest music. There are no guitar chords written for the traditional hymns, and even hymns are not overly appropriate for use in the mass. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth specifically. Some people have been suggesting, though, that any music that praises God is appropriate for church, and this is not true. Even hymns are a delicate issue. There are commonly four hymns that make up the bulk of the music at church, and the only one that is completely appropriate is the closing hymn because there is no other music that is approved for that place. The other three are replacing Gregorian chants, which are the norm. This practice is licit, as the rubrics say in each case that the music should be a) the chant or b) another approved piece of music. That said, always opting to use the non-traditional option is another example of how all of these options are destroying the sense of tradition.

Back to the instrument, though. If we are going to sing Gregorian chant, there is no guitar part for the chant. It would be beyond the scope of most untrained guitarists to write one, and no trained composers seem interested. In polyphony, the guitar is not capable of playing, unless we get four guitars each playing a single line. This is noted in the professional study of counterpoint, where the guitar is allowed to break what musicians consider “rules” or composition because of its very nature. The guitar is unique in its playing style, and does not allow itself to work within the traditions of either sacred or classical music very well. Yes, there is classical guitar music, but this music does not follow the same rules as the rest of the classical literature because of the nature of the guitar. It is not an organ substitute; it can’t play the same things. So the whole idea of “traditional” music with the guitar is a strange one to me. I’ve never heard anyone play guitar while singing in Latin (the vast majority of the truly traditional music is in Latin), except for the Christmas album that I recorded in college with my rock band of fellow Catholics. So, again, I challenge you-- find me this traditional Catholic guitar music, other than Stille Nacht.

So the truth comes out. A Traditionalist who sits on a stool with one leg, completely ignoring the other two. The kind of Traditionalist who believes that only the way they worship is licit, excluding all others. I recommend you broaden your horizons a tad. Go to a conference celebrating the Charismatic Renewal. Attend a praise and worship service outside of the Mass. Make a trip to a vibrant, active, Catholic university campus where the faith is more than just the rubrics, it is about worshiping the Triune God and serving our fellow man. Where daily Mass and long confession lines are the norm, and not the exception. If you open your eyes, you will see how rich, and how varied, our faith truly is.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

All the same, though, if the instrument is associated with secular music (and I mean strongly associated, like in a rock band), then, it has no place in the Mass.l

Boy R_U_ in for a shock when you get to heaven! God even has animals that talk there I know he will have guitars also and Johny Cash to playing one. you are loved Nancy

 

[Bluegoat]

So if a congregation of Beatles’ fans wants to get together and have a mass of Beatles’ music (with the words changed to the mass texts), that would be acceptable? What about a heavy metal mass? Hardcore mass? Gansta Rap mass? Surely there has to be more than opinion, especially when the flock was led astray. Common opinion cannot undo 2000 years of tradition. It can only resolve issues that are uncertain. For instance, is it okay to play violin at mass? Well, in the past it has been at some points and not at others. Common opinion probably would say that it is reasonable to be allowed to use the violin at mass. But when we talk about the guitar–at least the electric and steel-string acoustic varieties-- they are no more fitting than the banjo, which is to say, not at all. Perhaps the argument for the nylon-string classical guitar is more complex, since it is far removed from popular music these days, but there is still no body of truly sacred music written for the guitar. That’s the other problem that no one seems to want to address: the guitar doesn’t have traditional music associated with it because it has no place in the tradition. It has one song. One song. I can cite more liturgical music written for the harmonium. Fortunately for all of us, the new translation is going to cause a lot of this guitar music to be invalid, and the new translations don’t even try to preserve the same number of syllables, so the Sanctus and Gloria settings that we’ve had are going away.

I want those of you who like this guitar music to do me a favour: look through the guitar music hymnals and keep a careful eye on when things were written, who wrote them, and where the words were taken from. Most of the lyrics are distortions of the Bible texts because Bible texts didn’t conform to the proper syllable counts they needed to make them fit into verse/chorus schemes. That’s why chant and polyphony don’t have verse/chorus schemes 90% of the time–because the traditional Bible texts don’t work with that. Another major source of lyrics is the composer. The composers of the tradition never wrote their own words. They picked prayers that others had written and had been approved by the church and they set them to music. This is substantially different from making up a song about God and presenting it as suitable for church. Then there are some really strange places that the lyrics are taken from–I’ve even seen two whose texts were taken from the Vedas and the Upanishads (the Hindu scripture). In short, look critically at the music that you are being given and then ask yourself, is this really appropriate for the mass, when we have a tradition of chant and polyphony?

Now really, that Beatles masses would be the next thing doesn’t follow at all. (Actually, I once saw something far worse in an Anglican Church, but it was thoroughly squashed by the priest who had thought things were under control. But it was a very difficult hour to live through.) The text does not allow for it in any case. It gives boundaries that are really quite clear as far as what common use and practice are meant to apply to. The music needs to remain suitable to the character of the Mass and can’t in any way undermine it. It should be good quality music. In various cultural settings it may, and perhaps ought to, incorporate new types of music and instruments if they are appropriate to the character of the mass. Similarly if new styles or types of instruments are developed them may be incorporated if they are appropriate.

The banning of certain instruments is where the common use/opinion clause is being invoked, which is fairly specific If common use and opinion, of a particular instrument (and perhaps also style) is that it is only appropriate for secular music, then that instrument should be banned. It is a bit unclear whether it means either or both, “and” tends to be used both ways in normal language. So certainly if common opinion is that it is inappropriate and common use suggests so to, then it is out. Less clear might be if common use says no and common opinion yes. My inclination, since the addition of previously unused instruments is expressly allowed at least sometimes, is that use alone might not really apply if everyone seems to think it is a good idea (including the music director, bishop etc.) What if common use says yes and common opinion no? I’m not sure - it seems an unlikely situation. Perhaps if there was a serious reason for the change.

I’m not really sure that your point about the origins of all past hymns etc is totally to the point? I have no disagreement that there are some horrendously bad hymns out there, and some that are actually unchristian. (I had to stop attending the church I had been going to because I thought I would have a stroke if they asked me to sing “Gather Us in” again.) But to my mind, writing text specifically intended for music is not a problem if it is good and theologically sound. I am unsure why more people still don’t take texts from other sources these days.

But I can’t think of any of the posts that suggested that we shouldn’t question whether music is really appropriate, though a few said they don’t feel qualified to have an opinion.

 

[FrancisB]

So the truth comes out. A Traditionalist who sits on a stool with one leg, completely ignoring the other two. The kind of Traditionalist who believes that only the way they worship is licit, excluding all others. I recommend you broaden your horizons a tad. Go to a conference celebrating the Charismatic Renewal. Attend a praise and worship service outside of the Mass. Make a trip to a vibrant, active, Catholic university campus where the faith is more than just the rubrics, it is about worshiping the Triune God and serving our fellow man. Where daily Mass and long confession lines are the norm, and not the exception. If you open your eyes, you will see how rich, and how varied, our faith truly is.

What are you talking about? I’ve been to a large variety of masses from the TLM to the gospel mass at the local African American parish. I’ve seen the charismatic revival; I reject it. I have attended masses at Catholic, state, and private, non-Catholic colleges. None of this is relevant. The church wills what it wills, and the fact that many services deviate from this does not prove that they are correct. The only place I’ve ever seen long confession lines is at relatively traditional parishes. I’ve heard less traditional ones claim, as protestants do, that they can confess their sins to God without a priest. If you want to see valid variation in the faith, there are the Eastern rites and the non-Roman Western Rites. To my knowledge, they do not use guitars there either.

 

[FrancisB]

Boy R_U_ in for a shock when you get to heaven! God even has animals that talk there I know he will have guitars also and Johny Cash to playing one. you are loved Nancy

Last I checked, Johnny Cash is not a saint and claiming that he is in heaven is not something that is in any sense appropriate, given his life. I’m not suggesting that he is definitively in hell either, but let’s not get carried away. Also, last I checked, the Catholic church never taught that animals have souls, and without them, they are not going to be talking in heaven.