What do you think of a guitar Mass?

[nordskoven]

So the organ broke and okey doke the choir bloke made a hymn that’s folk…“Silent Night.”
–Rap Master Nordskoven

Glad you asked. I was just thinking today that after attending a Spanish Mass in a Spanish parish anything but a guitar ensemble gravely flailing away in sober, somber rhythms would be culturally alien and not sacral. An organ is just a giant pan flute. It defines sacral for you. Maybe me, too. But that’s cultural. I’m a music snob. But I know sincerity, see? I sang in a Latin choir and love great organ music but I also know poor parishes with amateur musicians are blessed to have volunteers show up and give it all they’ve got. I went out of there singing the Spanish “Sanctus” tune but with Latin words… And I noted that the musical theme is no more and no less rich than any of the Latin classics. Sorry for any musical affronts you’ve experienced. Conjoin your sufferings with Christ’s. Don’t waste the angst.

 

[MarkThompson]

Don’t you just love it when Magisterial documents are misinterpreted. Apparently “pride of place” menas “don’t use them anymore” in some parishes. And for the recorrd, I know of some very reverent OF Masses with organs and nary an altar girl in sight

What does “pride of place” mean, then, Tommy? “Must be used exclusively”? That’s how you’d seem to have it (“PERIOD.”), but as you obviously understand, that would be a patently erroneous misinterpretation.

Of course, you recall Sacrosanctum Concilium, which allows the use of instruments that “are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use.” What does that mean? What is an example of an instrument that is not suitable, but could be made suitable, for the Mass? Drums probably aren’t generally suitable for the liturgy (I assume you’d agree), but does playing the timpani part in Mozart’s Requiem make them suitable? Doubtless you’d agree, but why; because the music is reverent and the drums can themselves be played with reverence as an integral part of that piece? Or am I wrong, and Mozart’s Requiem must categorically be rejected wherever the propers could be chanted, since the human voice, not an orchestra, holds pride of place?

Put more directly, you are not thinking about these issues very thoroughly. The blanket statements you are making, and that you’re claiming to find in the Church’s documents, are flimsy. It is probably true that when an organ, with a capable organist, is present, it should never be set aside in favor of guitar. (I say probably, because the same “definitive documents” would seem to tell you that the organ and voice may under no circumstances yield precedence to an orchestra, but since, obviously, the Church one has never held to any such position, it is clear that the documents cannot be as definitive as you have understood them (“PERIOD”).) However, at a small Mass – say, twenty teenagers on a retreat, with no capable organist or keyboardist, would you say that the Church must forbid accompanying and supporting congregational singing with a guitar if someone present can play it? Is the guitar not an instrument, that, although not suitable for the liturgy, can be made suitable by the straits of necessity, by restrained playing, and by the choice of appropriately reverential music?

 

[pnewton]

The Mass is eternal, which is not to be encroached upon by the world.

The Mass is eternal, but it is for the World. The organ itself was once an encroachment, as was polyphonic chant. The Catholic Church has always used inculturation. That is an older tradition than even Gregorian Chant or the organ. Yet you have a point. The Church can not have carte blanche in allowing the secular into the sanctuary.

 

[diggerdomer]

But, the organ has a several-centuries old tradition of usage in the Church. It is also the only instrument mentioned specifically by name in the authoritative documents of the Church. It has been extolled by Popes, including Pope St. Pius X and Pope Benedict XVI.

Good point. The organ is clearly a “privileged” instrument. On the other hand, Catholics celebrated Eucharist faithfully and truly long before the organ was invented, and have always continued to do so without an organ.

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually, the temple was built after King David’s death by his son, Solomon. Thus, David could not have introduced it into the temple. Furthermore, the stringed instrument was also not a part of the sacrificial cultic worship of Ancient Israel.

The question that the OP poses is both an interesting one and, as I can tell from reading this threads and others of a similar vein, a polemical one. That is why I believe that I should step gingerly into the minefield.

I will be frank with you. In my much younger days (pre-teen), I had no qualms about the guitar because I did not know any better. My childhood was spent in a Catholic school (K through 8th) where the guitar was the only instrument we used at Mass. I even learned how to play it so that I could be in the glee club (I did not play it well, but, enough to make a half-way decent noise). Listening to the songs once again (the same OCP drek that the younger generation is subjected to), I think that the school did not do us any favors. It was not until I got to college that I realized that I had actually missed out on something beautiful, something majestic, something extraordinary when I heard the pipe organ. It’s something that, in my opinion, a guitar cannot convey. I have often said, “You can’t give what you don’t have.” I apply this to the guitar.

I have to agree with the comment that the individual made to the OP. Instead of bringing God down to our level, we need to do what we can to elevate our hearts and our worship to His. We need to remember that at the Mass, the veil between time and space and heaven and earth is lifted. We step into God’s time, which is the eternal present. Everthing we do at Mass, and this includes the music.

How do we know that a stringed instrument was not part of sacrificial cult of ancient Israel? I have never heard that claim before. Thank you.

 

[diggerdomer]

Guitars in the Mass are in violation of Sancrosactum Concilim

No they are not.

Your reference?

 

[diggerdomer]

Guitars are neither suitable nor can they be made so. Guitars are for secular entertainment

Your opinion.

Not the same as Church teaching.

Unless you know otherwise?

 

[diggerdomer]

Problem is that proper music is NOT played. It is some pop-sounding “worship song.” Primacy is to go to the organ and voice. PERIOD.

And this is taught by the Catholic Church…where?

 

[diggerdomer]

[edited] Your baseball example is ludicrous, as organs were used for worship long before baseball was invented, whereas guitars were always used primarily for entertainment, and only for “worship” among protestants. What is wrong with honoring the ancient traditions of the Church? Why the insistence on trying to make Mass an occasion of entertainment rather than a solemn sacrifice and meal? You want to use a guitar at a prayer service, or praise and worship? Fine. Be my guest. Keep innovations out of the Mass.

Huh. So, what did the Church do, musically, before organs were invented? Assuming of course that the Eucharist was validly and licitly celebrated by Christians prior to the invention of the organ…or not?

Based on the psalms…I’d guess string instruments were likely a possibility.

Thoughts?

 

[diggerdomer]

In western culture, the Organ is associated with worship. The guitar is associated with rock and roll, blues, country, pretty much anything except worship. If it is suitable for worship why was it NEVER used for worship before the 1970’s?

Are you saying Western culture is determinative for valid Christian (Catholic) worship?

And, fyi, the guitar (and similar string instruments) existed long before rock and roll, blues, country, etc.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[StTommyMore]

So where did SC give blanket permission to do whatever you want with Sacred Music? Oh that’s right, it didn’t.

 

[Cat]

In western culture, the Organ is associated with worship. The guitar is associated with rock and roll, blues, country, pretty much anything except worship. If it is suitable for worship why was it NEVER used for worship before the 1970’s?

I disagree with this.

Yes, if you were raised in a traditional church and if you didn’t venture into the “world,”, you will associate the organ with worship.

But many people did not grow up in traditional churches that use a liturgy in their worship. This is especially true of people who are not white, or Protestants in charismatic or “primitive” churches (e.g., some Baptist denominations).

For them, the organ is not necessarily a church instrument, but is associated with 1) rock bands, especially the druggy ones 2) silent movies 3) baseball games or 4) roller skating rinks.

I personally tend to associate the organ with rock bands more than with church because of the the times and the environment in which I grew up.

I also tend to associate acoustic guitars with church more than with rock bands because I grew up in a church where guitars were played on a weekly basis in worship services (I was raised in a Conference Baptist church and I was a child/teenager in the late 60s/early 70s.

Also keep in mind that for some people, the organ is more a performance instrument to be used for the beautiful classical–but not necessarily sacred–music pieces.

The more I read of the music debate threads in CAF, the more I’m convinced that many of the posters have no clue about life outside of their own very narrow sphere. I’m aware that especially people who are not from white, European backgrounds and/or grew up in certain areas of the U.S. have very different perceptions of certain musical instruments and musical styles. There is by no means a consensus in the U.S. on which instruments are secular and which are sacred. It all depends on where and how you grew up.

For example, for me, the music that is most sacred and least likely to be heard outside of church is gospel music. Yes, some of the rock or jazz bands use a gospel style once in a while, but for the most part, you will not hear gospel music anywhere except in church or on a Southern Christian radio station.

Thankfully Holy Mother Church has made some allowance in the rubrics for different instruments other than pipe organ, and some musical styles other than “ancient.” I would challenge CAF posters try very hard to think outside of their little box and stop interpreting the Church documents in such a narrow way that only allows one instrument and a few musical styles (chant and polyphony). I would challenge CAF posters to study other Christian musical traditions and come to understand that in many populations, guitars, pianos, etc. are not secular at all, and therefore, according to the Church documents, can be used in Mass.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Worth repeating (and applicable to wa-ay more than just music debate threads)

The more I read of the music debate threads in CAF, the more I’m convinced that many of the posters have no clue about life outside of their own very narrow sphere.

:clapping:
tee

 

[zab]

So where did SC give blanket permission to do whatever you want with Sacred Music? Oh that’s right, it didn’t.

No-one here is saying it did.

 

[lutherlic]

If I may, let me offer this as a summary:

The reason this touches a nerve is because the posters in this thread care deeply about the Sacrifice of the OF Mass and how it is celebrated. We do not want novelties introduced or anything which changes the focus from God and the Eucharist.

I think it has been clearly established (for all or at least most of us) that the pipe organ holds a special place of “high esteem” but it is not the only officially acceptable instrument.

Beyond this, we have our personal preferences and in some cases limitations of available musicians and instruments.

Is that a fair summary?

 

[zab]

If I may, let me offer this as a summary:

The reason this touches a nerve is because the posters in this thread care deeply about the Sacrifice of the OF Mass and how it is celebrated. We do not want novelties introduced or anything which changes the focus from God and the Eucharist.

I think it has been clearly established (for all or at least most of us) that the pipe organ holds a special place of “high esteem” but it is not the only officially acceptable instrument.

Beyond this, we have our personal preferences and in some cases limitations of available musicians and instruments.

Is that a fair summary?

My personal preference happens to be the organ. But there are situations where a guitar may be the only musical instrument available or the only talented muscician happens to be good at the guitar and not the organ. So all that I am saying is that I do not see anything in church documents that would prohibit the use of a guitar. How dare anyone say of me that I am "espousing “the Spirit of Vatican 2” that thinks that the Mass is a local talent show. " How dare anyone insinuate that I or others participating on this thread do NOT care deeply about the Sacrifice of the Mass and how it is celebrated.

 

[benedictgal]

If I may, let me offer this as a summary:

The reason this touches a nerve is because the posters in this thread care deeply about the Sacrifice of the OF Mass and how it is celebrated. We do not want novelties introduced or anything which changes the focus from God and the Eucharist.

I think it has been clearly established (for all or at least most of us) that the pipe organ holds a special place of “high esteem” but it is not the only officially acceptable instrument.

Beyond this, we have our personal preferences and in some cases limitations of available musicians and instruments.

Is that a fair summary?

This is very well said. Part and parcel of the problem that I have encountered here at CAF is that there is a criticism of those of us who take the Church’s authoritative documents to heart. As you noted (and, as I also stated in one of my replies), the organ is the only instrument that the documents refer to by name. It holds the pride of place. The guitar lacks the beauty, the solemnity and the majesty that is found in the organ. It tends to make the liturgy more casual, as I have experienced it.

As originally posted by Cat
But many people did not grow up in traditional churches that use a liturgy in their worship. This is especially true of people who are not white, or Protestants in charismatic or “primitive” churches (e.g., some Baptist denominations).

For them, the organ is not necessarily a church instrument, but is associated with 1) rock bands, especially the druggy ones 2) silent movies 3) baseball games or 4) roller skating rinks.

I personally tend to associate the organ with rock bands more than with church because of the the times and the environment in which I grew up.

I also tend to associate acoustic guitars with church more than with rock bands because I grew up in a church where guitars were played on a weekly basis in worship services (I was raised in a Conference Baptist church and I was a child/teenager in the late 60s/early 70s.

Also keep in mind that for some people, the organ is more a performance instrument to be used for the beautiful classical–but not necessarily sacred–music pieces.

The more I read of the music debate threads in CAF, the more I’m convinced that many of the posters have no clue about life outside of their own very narrow sphere. I’m aware that especially people who are not from white, European backgrounds and/or grew up in certain areas of the U.S. have very different perceptions of certain musical instruments and musical styles. There is by no means a consensus in the U.S. on which instruments are secular and which are sacred. It all depends on where and how you grew up.

While the guitar may work for other denominations, the Church does not look at other forms of worship practiced by the Protestant ecclesial communities. She looks at her own and speaks to her own. Whatever may work for Protestant ecclesial communities does not necessarily carry over well with the Church. While there may be some who may not have had the tradition of the organ in their former Protestant ecclesial communities, we need to look at things from the Church’s standpoint and her centuries of traditional sacred music and not Hollywood stereotypes.

I apologize to Cat about lifting her post. Inasmuch as I have been here for nearly three years, I still do not know how to imbed posts into another thread.

 

[zab]

This is very well said. Part and parcel of the problem that I have encountered here at CAF is that there is a criticism of those of us who take the Church’s authoritative documents to heart. As you noted (and, as I also stated in one of my replies), the organ is the only instrument that the documents refer to by name. It holds the pride of place. The guitar lacks the beauty, the solemnity and the majesty that is found in the organ. It tends to make the liturgy more casual, as I have experienced it.

I did not see any comments criticising those who take the Church’s authoritative documents to heart. But some terrible untruths were said of me and others who were in fact quoting from Church documents just because we have a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of those church document.

 

[kenofken]

As long as it’s a vintage Les Paul played by someone who knows their business, I really don’t see an issue!

 

[JackVk]

As long as it’s a vintage Les Paul played by someone who knows their business, I really don’t see an issue!

They pretty much only use acoustic guitars at Mass.