What do you think of a guitar Mass?

[pnewton]

What made you pick the bassoon, though?

It is a funny instrument.

 

[SimonDodd]

SimonDodd:

At root, the question is whether a “common opinion and use [that guitar is] suitable for secular music only” exists, not whether the people who hold it are as benighted as you suggest. Once it’s conceded (as it must be) that there are individuals on either side of the question, and conceding as we must that there can’t be a heckler’s veto, the question becomes: at what point does the number of people who don’t share the common opinion defease the consensus?

Doesn’t the fact that guitar is already in use at mass in many churches already mitigate in its favor on this question?

In principle it might, but there are some caveats and limits to that argument. Its fundamental assumption is that the common opinion of a parish is adequately reflected in its use of guitars at Mass. But the parish as a whole doesn’t make that decision; it may reflect the opinion of the pastor, and/or the liturgy committee, and/or the musical director. Imputing that opinion to the congregation is dicey: you don’t know what percentage of them actually like it, vs. not really thinking about it, or disliking it but not wanting to make a fuss, or disliking it and not knowing to whom a complaint should be directed, or really hating it and having had their complaints rebuffed, and so on.

The other problem is that while that point argues (to whatever extent) for the prevalence of an opinion, it doesn’t settle the underlying question which is where the line is. So you’re right that how many parishes use guitar can be reflective, to some extent, of how strong or weak the consensus is, but it doesn’t settle where the line is.

 

[zab]

In principle it might, but there are some caveats and limits to that argument. Its fundamental assumption is that the common opinion of a parish is adequately reflected in its use of guitars at Mass. But the parish as a whole doesn’t make that decision; it may reflect the opinion of the pastor, and/or the liturgy committee, and/or the musical director. Imputing that opinion to the congregation is dicey: you don’t know what percentage of them actually like it, vs. not really thinking about it, or disliking it but not wanting to make a fuss, or disliking it and not knowing to whom a complaint should be directed, or really hating it and having had their complaints rebuffed, and so on.

The other problem is that while that point argues (to whatever extent) for the prevalence of an opinion, it doesn’t settle the underlying question which is where the line is. So you’re right that how many parishes use guitar can be reflective, to some extent, of how strong or weak the consensus is, but it doesn’t settle where the line is.

I wouldn’t be surprised if other parishes are similar to ours in that every Mass is a little different. We have different choirs for each of the Masses. At this time we do not have any guitar players but in years past the guitar was used at only one Mass. If people were that much against the use of a guitar they could always go to another Mass unless they had an occupation where their choice of Masses was limited.

 

[JHow]

…you don’t know what percentage of them actually like it, vs. not really thinking about it, or disliking it but not wanting to make a fuss, or disliking it and not knowing to whom a complaint should be directed, or really hating it and having had their complaints rebuffed, and so on.

This is a really good point. On Sundays our parish has an 8:00 am (“ye olde folks mass”) mass, which has one singer, no choir, one piano, all the music is what I would term standard fare, the 9:30 mass (which I attend most often) is the “kid and family mass”, with choir, piano, one guitar, the music varies widely, depending on the choir director’s inspiration, and the 11:30 am (“everybody else mass”), which is again choir, piano or electric organ, and a mixture of old and new music. There is also the Saturday 5:30 pm mass which is the “yout’ mass” and includes a “praise band”. Depending on life situation, people tend to gravitate to one mass or the other and an attempt is made to match musical styles to these groups.

I recall one time, however, where the music director (at the instigation of a particular deacon) got the idea to switch up the musical formats, to “shake things up a bit”. As a result, the praise band showed up at the 9:30 am mass and traumatized some of the older parishoners. I felt particularly bad for a friend of mine, an older lady (who was very nice to me when I went through RCIA, and even gave me a copy of the Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth booklet from CAF), who happened to be sitting behind me a few pews. After mass she looked visibly agitated (as a result of the volume of the praise band) and said to my wfe and I that she couldn’t believe it and that she would now have to "… go to mass at the Sisters’ " (meaning Mary, Health of the Sick hospice two blocks away). I think the music director got some feedback for switching up the music like that, because it hasn’t happened since, and of course my friend still comes to 9:30 mass. But, really, it is not a good thing to agitate and potentially displace faithful, long-attending parishoners for the sake of a high-volume praise band. I think the pastor knew this, which is why I think he sent the praise band back to the 5:30 mass.

 

[JMTelles]

In principle it might, but… it doesn’t settle the underlying question which is where the line is. So you’re right that how many parishes use guitar can be reflective, to some extent, of how strong or weak the consensus is, but it doesn’t settle where the line is.

Good luck finding that line. A dividing line assumes a clear distinction can be made, and this board has surely proved that is a very unlikely prospect.

 

[JMTelles]

I was surprised to find the organ was not initially allowed in church, do to its profane nature … the Catholic Encylcopedia on New Advent. newadvent.org/cathen/11297a.htm

"This organ, called hydraulus, or organum hydraulicum, from the water used in the blowing apparatus, enjoyed great popularity. Writers like Cicero are loud in its praise. Even emperors took pride in playing it. It was used to heighten the pleasures of banquets and was associated particularly with the theatre and the circus.

The organ in Church service
In the early centuries the objection of the Church to instrumental music applied also to the organ, which is not surprising, if we remember the association of the hydraulus with theatre and circus. According to Platina (“De vitis Pontificum”, Cologne, 1593), Pope Vitalian (657-72) introduced the organ into the church service. This, however, is very doubtful. At all events, a strong objection to the organ in church service remained pretty general down to the twelfth century, which may be accounted for partly by the imperfection of tone in organs of that time. But from the twelfth century on, the organ became the privileged church instrument, the majesty and unimpassioned character of its tone making it a particularly suitable means for adding solemnity to Divine worship."

I wonder if we need another 6 centuries to get the guitar accepted, since it seems to have taken almost that long to get over the organ’s pagan and hedonistic origins.

 

[Cat]

I know this is a looong thread, and perhaps this has been quoted before. If so, forgive the duplication.

My husband talked to a Catholic musician who plays clarinet. Here is a quote that we have seen before on this thread.

Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
Chapter VI, Sacred Music

*120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument that adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up the spirit 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 and in conformity with art. 22-2, art. 37 and art.40.  This applies, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, are in accord with the dignity of the place of worship, and truly contribute to the uplifting of the faithful.*

But here is a quote that we HAVEN’T seen before, at least that I remember:

Here’s an excerpt from Article 37:

• Even in the liturgy the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matter that do not affect the faith or the good of the whole community; rather, the Church respects and fosters the genius and talents of the various races and peoples.

And even more pertinent to this particular thread:

Music in Catholic Worship

*37. Song is not the only kind of music suitable for liturgical celebration. Music performed on the organ and other instruments can stimulate feelings of joy and contemplation at appropriate times. This can be done effectively at the following points: an instrumental prelude, a soft background to a spoken psalm, at the preparation of the gifts in place of singing, during portions of the communion rite, and the recessional.

**In the United States, "musical instruments other than the organ may be used in liturgical services, provided 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 seems to me that the discussion is ended and this is the answer to the OP, straight from the Church documents.

Like it or not, guitars, pianos, and pretty much any other instrument are allowed in the United States, and no should try to suggest that these instruments are “banned” or that they are somehow inappropriate for Mass. They have already been cleared for use in Mass by the Church.

I KNEW that my bishop was correct and that I was right to trust his judgement, not a bunch of internet forum users. I’m sorry to be so uppity, but I play piano in Mass, **and it hurts **my soul and spirit when people imply that I am doing something hurtful to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and His Church. I came into the Catholic Church from a Protestant tradition and I truly want to be a good Catholic, and it HURTS when people imply that I’m not just because I do what my bishop says is OK. It makes me wonder if like I’m being fed a line of bull by my bishop, just like the Protestant pastors fed me and my family a big pile of poo all those years. It makes it hard to trust anyone, including my good and honorable bishop.

I would caution everyone on CAF to please not just go along with someone that you don’t even know on an internet forum. For all we know, some of the posters could be weirdos who are laughing at us from behind their computer monitors. Trust the ordained authorities of the Catholic Church, unless they are advocating obvious sin. And go through proper channels to patiently and humbly correct anything that you think might be abusive or irreverent in your local Mass.

 

[SimonDodd]

Here’s an excerpt from Article 37 [of Sacrosanctum Concilium]:
Even in the liturgy the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matter that do not affect the faith or the good of the whole community; rather, the Church respects and fosters the genius and talents of the various races and peoples.

Alright. But Musicam Sacram was promulgated after SC, and the “lack of rigid uniformity” is most likely the reason why a vague standard is adopted rather than a specific list of instruments that are and aren’t allowed. This extract neither contradicts nor bolsters anything said above, whether for or against guitar.

And even more pertinent to this particular thread:

*37. Song is not the only kind of music suitable for liturgical celebration. Music performed on the organ and other instruments can stimulate feelings of joy and contemplation at appropriate times. This can be done effectively at the following points: an instrumental prelude, a soft background to a spoken psalm, at the preparation of the gifts in place of singing, during portions of the communion rite, and the recessional.

**In the United States, "musical instruments other than the organ may be used in liturgical services, provided 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***.

From what document is that a quote? It isn’t from Sacrosanctum Concilium, as your post implies.

 

[MarkThompson]

From what document is that a quote? It isn’t from Sacrosanctum Concilium, as your post implies.

It’s apparently from a 1967 decision of the USCCB.

 

[SimonDodd]

Mark, so it is: this appears to be the full text, entitled “Music in Catholic Worship” (“MCW”). And as an NCCB document, it could be significant: After all, while “*t is for the Holy See alone to determine the more important general principles,” “[d]irection in this matter, within the limits laid down, also belongs to the competent territorial Episcopal Conferences….” MS12.

Given the dates (Musicam Sacram was issued in March '67, MCW appears to be from the fall of that year), it makes sense to read MCW as implementing MS. But that doesn’t bail guitar fans out of the limits of MS, because MCW has to be read as operating within the limits of MS. I’ve discussed those already, in post #485.

Moreover, MCW is a 1967 document; why doesn’t STL, issued in 2007, supersede it? MCW says that “musical instruments other than the organ may be used in liturgical services, provided they are played in a manner that is suitable to public worship,” but STL is more restrictive: musical instruments other than the organ can “also enrich the celebration of the Liturgy, such as wind, stringed, or percussion instruments ‘according to longstanding local usage, provided they are truly apt for sacred use or can be rendered apt.’” STL90 (quoting GIRM393).*

 

[benedictgal]

Music in Catholic Worship, however, is not an authoritative document. In fact, it was from a three-bishop panel. It carries no weight as it merely recommends, but, even at that, it is not a binding document. Sing to the Lord, while having been brought forth from the USCCB did not get the required votes to submit it to Rome for the recognitio.

Again, what proponents tend to forget is that in 2001, the CDWDS specifically stated that the national episcopal conference, not individual bishops, were to be the ones to formulate policy on musical instruments. In the absence of such a policy, then, the universal norms would have to be followed.

 

[MarionC]

I agree that it is simply a matter of taste.

My mother was a church organist. Now my son plays the guitar at 7PM mass on Sunday evening.

For those who love the pipe organ, please keep in mind that an organist can only be on duty so many hours a day!

 

[diggerdomer]

I am very interested in the topic of the thread - which you can see by looking at how many times I have posted here. I was attempting to make a point by using humor. Sometimes it works well - other times not so much. My point by saying “let’s make a list” was to draw attention to the fact that there really isn’t a list and doesn’t need to be, and to get people to realize that guitar, while not an organ, is also not a noseflute. That is to say, that guitar better belongs in the class of “serious” instruments.

There have been two main thrusts of anti-guitar argument here:

1. Doesn’t live up to the official “rules”, not approved
2. Not a serious instrument

I was trying to go after both. People can sometimes be brought to your point of view if you push them far off balance with an extreme position or example. If you make them laugh while you do it, they sometimes don’t get upset about where you are trying to pull them.

Thanks! I get it, now. And appreciate it!

Your points are well taken.

 

[diggerdomer]

Music in Catholic Worship, however, is not an authoritative document. In fact, it was from a three-bishop panel. It carries no weight as it merely recommends, but, even at that, it is not a binding document. Sing to the Lord, while having been brought forth from the USCCB did not get the required votes to submit it to Rome for the recognitio.

Again, what proponents tend to forget is that in 2001, the CDWDS specifically stated that the national episcopal conference, not individual bishops, were to be the ones to formulate policy on musical instruments. In the absence of such a policy, then, the universal norms would have to be followed.

“Music in Catholic Worship” does NOT “carry no weight.”

It was taught by bishops. Bishops’ teachings are not of “no weight.” Anything that Bishops teach deserve respect and adherence. Teaching of our Bishops are not simply optional, as some cafeteria Catholics may think.