What do you think about guitars during mass?

[Sword_Brethren]

I think the following psalm from today’s reading has something to say about music and God:

Ps 150:1b-2, 3-4, 5-6

R. (6) Let everything that breathes praise the Lord!
Praise the LORD in his sanctuary,
praise him in the firmament of his strength.
Praise him for his mighty deeds,
praise him for his sovereign majesty.
R. Let everything that breathes praise the Lord!
Praise him with the blast of the trumpet,
praise him with lyre and harp,
Praise him with timbrel and dance,
praise him with strings and pipe.
R. Let everything that breathes praise the Lord!
Praise him with sounding cymbals,
praise him with clanging cymbals.
Let everything that has breath
praise the LORD! Alleluia.
R. Let everything that breathes praise the Lord!

I’m sure if guitars and other means of modern music existed then, they would be mentioned in this psalm. Since clanging cymbals are mentioned, I would guess that even drums would be okay. I quite like some of the modern Christian music, and see nothing wrong with it. It beats some of the “funeral dirge” type stuff one often hears at some masses today, so dreary and depressing…

Were the Jews doing all that in the Temple Worship?

 

[FrancisB]

Were the Jews doing all that in the Temple Worship?

No, of course not; it was private devotion. Private devotion can use whatever instruments the devotees wish. All that matters is that they do not use lyrics that are in any way heretical or otherwise problematic. In mass, though, we are to have higher standards, are we not?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

What I meant to say is, were the Jewish Priests worshiping like that in the Holy Temple?

 

[CWBetts]

No I haven’t, indeed I’m fairly glad I haven’t. No the charismatic movement claims to be based “firmly on the New Testament”, the reality is rather different. Where did I dismiss the Holy Spirit? Dismissing the alleged charismatic renewal does not equate to dismissing the work of the Holy Spirit.

Actually it tells us plenty about the culture of a university which claims to be ‘catholic’ while actively advocating a movement which came straight from Protestantism and working against the Holy Father’s will as expressed in the Moto Proprio.

And we have no reason to believe that your views on music, or on the charismatic renewal are correct, not least when the only thing which you bring to bear to keep them afloat is hot air. The documents are more valid than opinion, and Benedictgal has provided an abundance of documented facts about the Church’s position while your views rely on loop holes and the outright dismissal of any of those same documents which your preconceived position does not agree with. Before accusing others of arrogance perhaps you should review your own position.

Ah so we can forget about Music and Marian devotion, but anyone who dismisses the charismatic renewal is somehow denying the Holy Spirit? Again I suggest you read the previous threads on the ‘renewal’, this thread has went off topic quite enough.

Very intersting that you demand proof of others, provide none yourself, and then expect your own position to trump all others purely through personal prejudices, attacks and petty attempts at dismissing them.

The Scriptures are proof enough. The Charismatic movement has its roots in Acts Chapter 2. Or are you one of those Catholics who thinks the only time the Scriptures should be looked at is during Mass? I myself am not a part of the movement, but I also do not claim it is false, as you do. Are you infallible? No. Yet you almost dogmatically claim that this vibrant movement is false, and worse a movement you have had no contact with. This is not off topic, because all of you who ignore the hierarchy of truths ignore everything that does not fit inside your “Catholic Box” Our faith is greater than that. Part of its richness is the fact that there is the potential for variety, while staying essentially the same.

 

[snhs]

The Scriptures are proof enough. The Charismatic movement has its roots in Acts Chapter 2. Or are you one of those Catholics who thinks the only time the Scriptures should be looked at is during Mass? I myself am not a part of the movement, but I also do not claim it is false, as you do. Are you infallible? No. Yet you almost dogmatically claim that this vibrant movement is false, and worse a movement you have had no contact with. This is not off topic, because all of you who ignore the hierarchy of truths ignore everything that does not fit inside your “Catholic Box” Our faith is greater than that. Part of its richness is the fact that there is the potential for variety, while staying essentially the same.

No they are not. Scriptures prove that God bestowed special gifts on certain people, the history of the Church shows that occasionally people were also given particular gifts for the good of the Church and well being of the Faithful. It did not say that sometime in the sixties a movement would start in Protestant groups which have been separated from the fullness of the Faith for centuries. It did not say that the movement should then be imported into the Catholic Church. It did not say that its fervent devotees should subject anyone who does not ascribe to it some Divine authority as a working of the Holy Spirit to snide insinuations that they dismiss the Holy Spirit or whatever other accusations they may feel like slinging in.

I hardly see what infallibility has to do with it. If you can point me to a dogma of the Catholic Church which proclaims the ‘charismatic renewal’ a work of the Holy Spirit then I should gladly accept it as such, but as no such decree exists I am entitled to my view on it. Indeed if either of us has had pretensions to infallibility it is you, for where in the teachings of the Catholic Church does it say “To reject the Charismatic renewal is to to reject the power of the Holy Spirit”, that is not the teaching of the Church rather your own, arbritrary and invented, proclamation from earlier in this same thread.

The Cathars were a vibrant movement at one point, as were the Arians. Vibrancy is no guarentee as to truth.

What, pray tell, is greater than God? God is most certainly in my ‘Catholic box’ as you term it, as are the Words of the Creed and all the Church teaches. That which is the Catholic Faith is universal, however that does not permit perversion of doctrine to intrude, nor does it extend to your brand of attacking anyone who disagees with you, inserting your own dogmas and disregarding what the Church teaches when it is inconvenient to your flawed perceptions.

I also refer you to the words of Fr DiNoia, now Undersecretary of the CDF, quoted here:

“From this way of thinking has emerged one of the most insidious abuses of “the hierarchy of doctrines.” The hierarchy of doctrines is treated as a way of ranking doctrines by their authority and as Avery Dulles has pointed out in an article we published in The Thomist. This of course was not what the Second Vatican Council meant by the hierarchy of doctrines. What the hierarchy of doctrines refers to is that all of the doctrines, which, you might say, seem not to be central, are not, therefore, dispensable, but only understandable with respect to a core.”

 

[CWBetts]

The Renewal exhibits the same Gifts in Acts, and St. Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians. You would hardly say that the holy Spirit is not involved at FUS if you would broaden your mind just a bit, and realize that God does not need your approval to work.

 

[EvelynEVF]

This has the smell of a different thread, but I’m going to throw it out here for consideration. I appreciate benedictgal’s assertion that we are all accountable, and I agree. However, sometimes this issues have been address at the parish and maybe the diocesan level, and nobody is budging.

It is bad for me, as a not-too-recent convert, to hang out on CAF too much, because then I discover all the little abuses happening around me. My parish is quite good, but when I travel, oof! Our previous pastor did a number of things that he knew darn well were not okay with the magesterium, but he made the choice based on his experience. I asked my spiritual director once how the man was able to do all this, and had anyone ever asked him about it. Yep, they had. More than once. And then they had to choose to submit, because if they harped on it, they jeopardized their working relationships.

We’ve had a new pastor for a couple years, and he immediately reversed almost every problem that I can think of. He wasn’t noisy about it, just did things like put a note in the bulletin that the reconciliation room had been rearranged to provide for confession behind a screen.

Our service music varies widely. There is one service with a strong pianist and a very good classical guitarist where most of the music is appropriate. There is another Mass that I can’t stand, because I feel like I need to stand up and wave my lighter. And we have a couple in the middle. Daily Masses use traditional hymns to open, begin with LotH, chant or sing a great deal, all a capella. I am working at chanting the psalms, but that makes me way more nervous than lectoring. I haven’t decided yet if I should offer up my struggle and get used to it for the good of chanting, or if my learning process distracts from the Word.

So where do we start, or continue, the process of cleaning up? Practically speaking, we are dependent on volunteers. We can get as traditional as we like at daily Mass without anybody minding, but changing a whole weekend Mass is a seriously big deal.

I can sing and play piano a bit. I have enough musical background that I’m sure I could pick up chant. But I have my little kids in the pew at least on weekends and sometimes daily. I don’t know any great musicians in the parish who could lead a schola. Though I suppose in my copious free time I could try to start a group.

That’s the struggle I see–I bet most of us would love to at least have the option every weekend of a really high and glorious liturgical service, but we don’t know how to get there. If we don’t have the capacity to do it ourselves for whatever reason, we don’t feel right about complaining. And if one makes suggestions and is turned away by the pastor, what then? I am deeply involved at my parish and value our pastor a great deal. I don’t want to be someone he sees coming and wants to run the other way

So what can we do, constructively? Brick by brick, as Fr Z would say

 

[Indyann]

No they are not. Scriptures prove that God bestowed special gifts on certain people, the history of the Church shows that occasionally people were also given particular gifts for the good of the Church and well being of the Faithful. It did not say that sometime in the sixties a movement would start in Protestant groups which have been separated from the fullness of the Faith for centuries. It did not say that the movement should then be imported into the Catholic Church. It did not say that its fervent devotees should subject anyone who does not ascribe to it some Divine authority as a working of the Holy Spirit to snide insinuations that they dismiss the Holy Spirit or whatever other accusations they may feel like slinging in.

I hardly see what infallibility has to do with it. If you can point me to a dogma of the Catholic Church which proclaims the ‘charismatic renewal’ a work of the Holy Spirit then I should gladly accept it as such, but as no such decree exists I am entitled to my view on it. Indeed if either of us has had pretensions to infallibility it is you, for where in the teachings of the Catholic Church does it say “To reject the Charismatic renewal is to to reject the power of the Holy Spirit”, that is not the teaching of the Church rather your own, arbritrary and invented, proclamation from earlier in this same thread.

The Cathars were a vibrant movement at one point, as were the Arians. Vibrancy is no guarentee as to truth.

What, pray tell, is greater than God? God is most certainly in my ‘Catholic box’ as you term it, as are the Words of the Creed and all the Church teaches. That which is the Catholic Faith is universal, however that does not permit perversion of doctrine to intrude, nor does it extend to your brand of attacking anyone who disagees with you, inserting your own dogmas and disregarding what the Church teaches when it is inconvenient to your flawed perceptions.

---

I am not charismatic, however, whenever I see someone denigrating a legitimate spirituality of Catholism, I feel I must defend it. Below is the link to the website of Fr. Cantalamessa who has been Household Papal Preacher since 1980.

He is charismatic and has written and spoken much of the subject. If you explore his website, perhaps you will be convinced that the CCR is indeed a legitimate spirituality.

I cannot believe that both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI would allow a heretical Preacher to preach in the Vatican.

cantalamessa.org/en/index.php

 

[Bluegoat]

Let me return to this lovely idea that none of you pro-guitar people want to touch: the proper music of the mass is Gregorian chant. It was written in Latin, and has existed for the whole life of the church. If it was relevant 1900 years after the birth of the church, it is relevant 2000 years after the birth of the church. The popes have been calling for a return to chant for more than a century, and it has mostly not happened. The chant tradition is the source of valid music; it inspired (and in many cases was quoted as a musical source) for the polyphony of the past. It inspired the organ compositions that are commonplace to our tradition. The guitar is not part of this tradition. It never was. It’s not a new instrument, so to think that it should become one now is strange. The synthesizer, being similar to the organ, might be a candidate for use, albeit a strange one. It’s new enough and functions similarly to the old tradition that it might be appropriate. The music that the guitar plays is not even close to the same music. But no one wants to talk about that. Songs by Marty Haugen and the like (he, by the way, is Lutheran) have no place in our mass. They are not part of the tradition. But every time we quote documents, they don’t seem to matter…

And then we mistake the silence of the bishops as approval. Where have the bishops said this practice was acceptable? Allowing it to happen and approving it are not the same thing. This music with guitar is just one more Protestant innovation (like the Charismatic movement!) that has been allowed to slip into the Catholic Church. I reject Protestantism as heresy and reject anything that comes from it as being unsuitable for Catholic worship. I don’t care if it’s J. S. Bach. He was a Lutheran and his music was written for the Lutherans. It doesn’t belong at mass. Music is part of the prayer of the mass. It is not a separate entity from the prayer of the mass. To sing Protestant songs is to pray Protestant prayers. We have our music from the earliest times, and we know the texts. Perhaps if the texts were different, I would be less offended. It’s not so much the guitar to me that is offensive (although I do not think the popes have allowed for it yet); it is the Protestant hymns that have become the hallmark of the guitar mass. Worse yet, you can’t always tell from the name of the composer, since some of these Protestants actually claim to be Catholic.

This was the problem with allowing the vernacular. And it’s not that I think there’s anything wrong with the use of the vernacular, except that it opens the door to any number of problems that would have never happened in the Latin mass. I think I’m probably the only one who sits around and strums on the guitar and sings in Latin, and I know enough not to do so in church. We just wouldn’t be encountering this issue had so many Catholics not been willing to throw away our patrimony. If we abandon the music that was proper to the church for its whole history, how can we say that the music in our masses is in any way Catholic? We can’t.

The first thing that strikes me is there is absolutely no question that the Holy See has fully embraced., and emphasized the necessity of, using the vernacular. (Which I am not saying you dispute.) It is even noted specifically in some of the documents about music, not to mention the actual writings regarding language use itself. If you are seeing the use of the vernacular as a problem, perhaps there is some parallel disconnect with music? Yes, language is one way a kind of unity can be maintained - so is music. But if these, or other things, interfere with people’s worship, with their interaction with and relationship to the sacraments, it can be a problem. If the Church says Latin can be a vehicle for separating people from the liturgy in some cases, why would it not also be true of music or art?

And secondly, I think it is important to remember that in the parlance of the Church, tradition, and Tradition, do not mean things which relate only or even primarily to what was done in the past. Both specifically refer to the sum total of belief and practice in the Church eternal - what was believed and done in the past, in the present, and in the future. Of course we don’t know what people will sing 1000 years from now. But keeping this in mind helps us to deal with tradition in the Church in a way that is more than antiquarian, and which reminds us that the Church has not been fully revealed to us yet.

FWIW, the CC also uses hymns by Martin Luther himself. I think there might even be a question in the apologists section about it.

 

[Cat]

I received a note back (email). I’ll post it (or at least excerpts) later this afternoon or evening when I am off work. It contains links to several documents, so I need to read through those, and I can’t right now (work).

Cat

 

[snhs]

The Renewal exhibits the same Gifts in Acts, and St. Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians. You would hardly say that the holy Spirit is not involved at FUS if you would broaden your mind just a bit, and realize that God does not need your approval to work.

Speaking in tongues? Known to be a feature of some demonic possessions. Prophecy? Are we not warned of false phrophets? The fact that people claim to have these gifts does not mean they have them, nor does it establish them as gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Indeed I would not, for when the leadership of that place tried to deny students that which the Church under the papacy of Pope Benedict had made available to them they petitoned for that which was their right and were ultimately granted it. Yes the Holy Spirit is at work, though perhaps not in the direction or places you, narrow-mindedly, think.

As I have pointed out several times, and Evelyn has also said, this thread is seriously off topic. Perhaps we can finally return to the discussion in hand.

 

[CTA1967]

I received a note back (email). I’ll post it (or at least excerpts) later this afternoon or evening when I am off work. It contains links to several documents, so I need to read through those, and I can’t right now (work).

Cat

Excellent! Can’t wait to read them. As for myself, for now I’ll refrain from debating as JReducation advised all of us, several pages back.

 

[Cat]

Back on topic!

Here is the cut-and-paste of the email that I received from my diocese today:

---

Dear ______,

Thank you for your email question regarding the use of the piano at Mass. I am Father Joseph Naill, the Director of the Office of Divine Worship for the Diocese of Rockford.

Put simply the Conference of Bishops have approved instruments other than the organ (although it holds primary place) for use at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. At times and in particular seasons they are use is restricted (Advent, Lent) under certain conditions.

I am including below some of the documents that speak to the issue.

So by all means, keep playing the piano!! You are neither in disobedience nor in error to play the piano.

Peace…Fr. Naill

Rev. Joseph P. Naill, Pastor
St. Patrick Church
3500 Washington Street
McHenry, IL 60050
(815) 385-0025
Fax: (815) 385-0861

Constitution on the Liturgy, November 1967

1. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.

But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.

Musicam Sacram, March 1967

1. In sung or said Masses, the organ, or other instrument legitimately admitted, can be used to accompany the singing of the choir and the people; it can also be played solo at the beginning before the priest reaches the altar, at the Offertory, at the Communion, and at the end of Mass.

The same rule, with the necessary adaptations, can be applied to other sacred celebrations.

1. The playing of these same instruments as solos is not permitted in Advent, Lent, during the Sacred Triduum and in the Offices and Masses of the Dead.
2. It is highly desirable that organists and other musicians should not only possess the skill to play properly the instrument entrusted to them: they should also enter into and be thoroughly aware of the spirit of the Liturgy, so that even when playing ex tempore, they will enrich the sacred celebration according to the true nature of each of its parts, and encourage the participation of the faithful.46

Newsletter: Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, July 1970 Vol 6/No.7

1. Musical instruments. The Conference of Bishops has decreed that musical instruments other than the organ may be used in liturgical services, provided that they are played in a manner that is suitable to public worship. This decision deliberately refrains from singling out specific instruments. Their use depends on circumstances, the nature of the congregation, etc.

---

OK, everyone, as far as I’m concerned, this settles the question, end of thread. You can disagree with the bishops if you wish and claim that most of the bishops in the United States are in error and that you alone (along with a few others) have properly discerned the truth from the collection of all the sacred writings of the Church.

But I will not dispute their decisions. As I have said many times in this thread, I will submit to their leadership in all things, unless they command me to do blatant sin.

I appreciate that several of you disagree with the apostles of Jesus, and are choosing to fight a battle with them. I think you’re on shaky ground, but it’s your decision and hopefully it will all work out for the best. I know that your motives are excellent–purifying and preserving the Sacred Liturgy.

I hope that you, in turn, will respect that I play piano (and enjoy listening to the guitar) in Mass because the bishops, including my bishop, have pronounced such things acceptable in the U.S. I am not indulging in “Protestant” thinking, or pandering to my own personal tastes. I am doing what my bishops tell me is OK to do as a Catholic.

And once again, I caution you against encouraging evangelical Protestant converts to disagree with their bishop and the other bishops. Authority issues are touchy for evangelical Protestants, and I think this makes us weak and vulnerable. If you, a strong Catholic, can disagree with bishops and not lose your faith, that’s wonderful. But not everyone is as strong as you are. Do your disagreeing with bishops *in private *, but seek to affirm their authority and encourage submission to their proclamations when you are around evangelical Protestants.

Cat

 

[CTA1967]

Aha! I knew we were missing something between 1967 and 2009.

Newsletter: Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, July 1970 Vol 6/No.7

1. Musical instruments. The Conference of Bishops has decreed that musical instruments other than the organ may be used in liturgical services, provided that they are played in a manner that is suitable to public worship. This decision deliberately refrains from singling out specific instruments. Their use depends on circumstances, the nature of the congregation, etc.

So it is apparent that those in authority do indeed have more access to official documents than we do.

 

[benedictgal]

I do share one observation with you. Neither the USCCB Committee on Worship’s Music in Catholic Worship nor the document that replaced it, Sing to the Lord, carry the recognitio of the Holy See. In fact, some portions of both documents actually run contrary to the authoritative documents of the Holy See in that MCW made allowances for recorded music and SttL was supportive of additional texts for trophes to the Agnus Dei (something that the documents from the CDWDS clearly indicate should not be happening). Furthermore, MCW was not even approved by the entire USCCB. It was a docment issued by a three-member panel.

When the lesser authority runs contrary to the higher authority, we obey what the higher authority has ruled. As an example, if the Texas Supreme Court issues a ruling making in favor of mandatory student testing and the US Supreme Court overrules this action, the higher authority supercedes what the lower one did.

While there are some good recommendations in SttL, it is not binding, nor does it carry the same weight as Musicam Sacram. Had the document received the necessary recognitio from Rome (it even failed to get the mandatory 2/3 vote of the Latin-Rite bishops that would have sent it to Rome in the first place), things would be different. Then, it would be considered binding.

 

[benedictgal]

Back on topic!

Here is the cut-and-paste of the email that I received from my diocese today:

---

Dear ______,

Thank you for your email question regarding the use of the piano at Mass. I am Father Joseph Naill, the Director of the Office of Divine Worship for the Diocese of Rockford.

Put simply the Conference of Bishops have approved instruments other than the organ (although it holds primary place) for use at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. At times and in particular seasons they are use is restricted (Advent, Lent) under certain conditions.

I am including below some of the documents that speak to the issue.

So by all means, keep playing the piano!! You are neither in disobedience nor in error to play the piano.

Peace…Fr. Naill

Rev. Joseph P. Naill, Pastor
St. Patrick Church
3500 Washington Street
McHenry, IL 60050
(815) 385-0025
Fax: (815) 385-0861

Constitution on the Liturgy, November 1967

1. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.

But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.

Musicam Sacram, March 1967

1. In sung or said Masses, the organ, or other instrument legitimately admitted, can be used to accompany the singing of the choir and the people; it can also be played solo at the beginning before the priest reaches the altar, at the Offertory, at the Communion, and at the end of Mass.

The same rule, with the necessary adaptations, can be applied to other sacred celebrations.

1. The playing of these same instruments as solos is not permitted in Advent, Lent, during the Sacred Triduum and in the Offices and Masses of the Dead.
2. It is highly desirable that organists and other musicians should not only possess the skill to play properly the instrument entrusted to them: they should also enter into and be thoroughly aware of the spirit of the Liturgy, so that even when playing ex tempore, they will enrich the sacred celebration according to the true nature of each of its parts, and encourage the participation of the faithful.46

Newsletter: Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, July 1970 Vol 6/No.7

1. Musical instruments. The Conference of Bishops has decreed that musical instruments other than the organ may be used in liturgical services, provided that they are played in a manner that is suitable to public worship. This decision deliberately refrains from singling out specific instruments. Their use depends on circumstances, the nature of the congregation, etc.

---

OK, everyone, as far as I’m concerned, this settles the question, end of thread. You can disagree with the bishops if you wish and claim that most of the bishops in the United States are in error and that you alone (along with a few others) have properly discerned the truth from the collection of all the sacred writings of the Church.

But I will not dispute their decisions. As I have said many times in this thread, I will submit to their leadership in all things, unless they command me to do blatant sin.

I appreciate that several of you disagree with the apostles of Jesus, and are choosing to fight a battle with them. I think you’re on shaky ground, but it’s your decision and hopefully it will all work out for the best. I know that your motives are excellent–purifying and preserving the Sacred Liturgy.

I hope that you, in turn, will respect that I play piano (and enjoy listening to the guitar) in Mass because the bishops, including my bishop, have pronounced such things acceptable in the U.S. I am not indulging in “Protestant” thinking, or pandering to my own personal tastes. I am doing what my bishops tell me is OK to do as a Catholic.

And once again, I caution you against encouraging evangelical Protestant converts to disagree with their bishop and the other bishops. Authority issues are touchy for evangelical Protestants, and I think this makes us weak and vulnerable. If you, a strong Catholic, can disagree with bishops and not lose your faith, that’s wonderful. But not everyone is as strong as you are. Do your disagreeing with bishops *in private *, but seek to affirm their authority and encourage submission to their proclamations when you are around evangelical Protestants.

Cat

First of all Cat, please do not characterize those of us who have legitimate concerns as “disagreeing with their bishops and other bishops.”

I read what the director of worship for your diocese wrote. With all due respect for what he wrote, I find it rather odd that the section from Musicam Sacram that has been at the heart of the discussion here was omitted:

1. In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. **However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.**44

Any musical instrument permitted in divine worship should be used in such a way that it meets the needs of the liturgical celebration, and is in the interests both of the beauty of worship and the edification of the faithful.

What your diocese has in place is meant for your diocese. However, it is not universal. What you have in place at your diocese may not necessarily be what the diocese next door to you has or the diocese clear across the globe.

While I am glad that you took the initiative of writing to your diocesan office, I do not really think that the matter has been settled once and for all, as the Holy See has yet to weigh in on the issue of Sacred Music by issuing a document that the now former secretary to the CDWDS said would be coming at some point in 2009.

Please do not mischaracterize this as an affront to open revolt against one’s bishop. When you make statements accusing people of seeking out disagreement, I believe that you have missed the point entirely.

 

[benedictgal]

Aha! I knew we were missing something between 1967 and 2009.

So it is apparent that those in authority do indeed have more access to official documents than we do.

But, my friend, there is an interesting piece to this that I think you have missed:

Newsletter: Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, July 1970 Vol 6/No.7

1. Musical instruments. The Conference of Bishops has decreed that musical instruments other than the organ may be used in liturgical services, provided that they are played in a manner that is suitable to public worship. This decision deliberately refrains from singling out specific instruments. Their use depends on circumstances, the nature of the congregation, etc.

The key phrase here is “played in a manner that is suitable for public worship”. That is a big distinction right there. If the guitar is being played in a manner befitting Chicago, Eddie Van Halen, Slash, Prince or the Edge, then that is a big problem.

 

[CTA1967]

Cat did write this earlier.

I received a note back (email). I’ll post it (or at least excerpts) later this afternoon or evening when I am off work. It contains links to several documents, so I need to read through those, and I can’t right now (work).

Cat

I think we’ve read the line about “suitable for secular music only” enough times to make us want to smash our head through the computer moniter, since nobody seems to agree on what it means. I know you and others are firm with your opinion. Some of us have not come to the same conclusion.

Edit: And I’m certainly not advocating music played like “Chicago, Eddie Van Halen, Slash, Prince or the Edge” at mass, to make myself clear.

 

[benedictgal]

Cat did write this earlier.

I think we’ve read the line about “suitable for secular music only” enough times to make us want to smash our head through the computer moniter, since nobody seems to agree on what it means. I know you and others are firm with your opinion. Some of us have not come to the same conclusion.

Edit: And I’m certainly not advocating music played like “Chicago, Eddie Van Halen, Slash, Prince or the Edge” at mass, to make myself clear.

What she posted, while I cannot speak for her, is, I believe, the entire text of the letter. I sincerely believe that Cat has the sincerity and integrity not to delete anything from what was written to her. Thus, I believe that what we read is what she received (of course, I can perfectly understand her deleting her name from the letter, as we are anonyomous here and I certainly respect her for that).

 

[CTA1967]

Considering that the quotes come after the conclusion of the letter, I think those are just excerpts from the links she said were provided to her, although I’m not sure. No, I don’t think she would deliberately delete from the body of the letter either.