What musical instruments are permitted at Mass?

[pnewton]

Not even kazoos?

Kazoos have not been.listed as a ‘profane instrument’, so why not use them?

What I said was:

• If the Church decides to loosen the definition to allow more leeway for the bishops and priest to decide what is best, then we need to accept that. In the context of the liturgy and choosing what is suitable, absurd exaggeration is not a valid argument. For example, no priest is using kazoos or AC/DC music for Mass.*

Until kazoos are used, this line of reason has no merit.

However, to answer your question, no, not even kazoos are disqualified because their historical use. They are disqualified because they are stupid and absurd. This is something every priest to a man knows. Thus, the more absurd and illogical the argument presented as evidence, the stronger the argument that the Church’s authority structure should be trusted.

 

[Brendan_64]

However, to answer your question, no, not even kazoos are disqualified because their historical use. They are disqualified because they are stupid and absurd.

But they’re not disqualified. As to them being stupid and absurd, is that your opinion or is that Church teaching?

 

[Sarabande]

The lines of authority are not so clear, Cat, because if they were then we would be enjoying Gregorian chant, organ, and Latin having pride of place in the liturgies, with sacred polyphony and noble instruments also given honor, while profane instruments and music being forbidden. We would be hearing proper antiphons chanted most of the time in place of hymns. This is what the universal Roman Rite documents call for, and none of this is what the bishops and pastors around the world have decreed for local parishes. So we have to ask if Rome’s liturgical legislation is really all that effective when it is more honored in the breach. Most of us believe that Rome has supreme authority over local bishops in those liturgical matters which she has not delegated to them. There are certainly myriad options and choices to be made by the ordinary, and it is possible that they all consider Rome’s clear preferences to be mere options to be freely ignored. That is the paradox I wonder about today. If the Church were an oligarchy and the priests and bishops all had a say in drawing up these documents, they would look quite different. But even “Sing to the Lord”, a USCCB document which does not have recognitio or the force of law, liberally quotes Church documents in regard to those forms of music and instruments which are to be accorded pride of place.

So honestly I see a disconnect here in what the Church is willing to put down on paper vs. what she allows and encourages in practice worldwide.

I would have to agree with you here. It often seems as if the Church in Rome is something that people think is all well and good for where Rome is, but for their parish or diocese, it’s not realistic. So what’s right and what’s wrong? Should Rome be heavy-handed and really insist on what they say upon the dioceses and parishes? Should they obey the Church? Should the Church make allowances depending on the spiritual needs of the diocese or parish? I know they do for various cultures, especially native cultures who don’t have a European background with the faith.

In my home diocese, I remember the previous bishop did away with a youth folk group at the cathedral. It was actually one of the first things he did. They played for a mass he was presiding over and then they were gone and no longer welcome to play for the liturgies. He didn’t think they were appropriate for liturgy. I and many of my colleagues thought, in error, that this meant other parishes would follow suit since the bishop did this. I had worked at the cathedral at the time, so I did get to know what was going on the “inside” per say. A few years later they worked on having the antiphons and propers done in all of the parishes. The Director of Worship studied in Rome and they wanted to follow as closely as they could with what Rome wanted. I freelance in many parishes, know many of the musicians and I know that very few parishes do all of this. There was a lot of pushback from the music directors. Many music directors who wanted to follow what the bishop wanted were met with resistance from their pastors and congregations. If they wanted to keep their jobs, they had to comply and obey the pastor. But then, they were basically forced to disobey the authority of the DofW for the diocese and the bishop.

(Continued)…

 

[Sarabande]

…(Continued)…

I do think it would be so much easier if there was an actual list of what is and is not permitted. Well… maybe it wouldn’t. You’d probably still get pushback and disobedience like what I saw in my diocese. But at least you’d have something to point to and say, “Look, Holy Mother Church says you can’t have x instrument or x style of music at mass. Period.” I know that it would make my job a lot easier.

Now, there is the part in the docs saying that if the instrument can be made rendered appropriate for use. That is helpful, but then who is to say what sounds appropriate after it has been rendered? I’ve heard some really reverent and appropriate renderings of the acoustic guitar at mass (and I’m not a particular fan of the guitar for liturgy). The way that instrument was played was enough for me to say, “Yes, that was rendered appropriate and I actually would be fine to attend a liturgy if all guitars were played like that at mass.” But for someone else, it would still be considered inappropriate.

I do personally feel that some instruments are better suited when it comes to making them sound appropriate for mass. The voice, for instance. There are many different styles to singing. There are even many different styles in singing classically. You’ve got what I call the “church” style of classical singing… either singing in straight tone for chant and early sacred music or with much less dramatic, operatic style of classical singing. A classically-trained singer who sings with her operatic voice at mass isn’t really doing something appropriate. It become more like a performance because that is what dramatic singing is - performing. The same with other styles of singing outside of classical singing. What is used more for performing and entertaining and what style has been traditionally used more for prayer and spiritual reflection. For me, if it sounds like something I would hear at a rock concert or broadway musical, in which those styles of singing are for entertaining, perhaps it wouldn’t be appropriate. I love secular folk music and a lot of voices that goes with it. (Not crazy about a lot of the pseudo-folk hymns I grew up with in the 80s and 90s.) If I didn’t become a classical singer, I probably would have gone towards this or more specifically singing Irish folk music. I do think because these kinds of voices often sound natural and could be of the woman or man sitting next to you at mass, they can be appropriate for liturgy, especially with hymns - even the traditional ones. But then you still have to be careful not to emote or be dramatic with the words. Emoting is a big no-no for me as a church musician.

Anyway, as there are many different nuances with the voice and appropriateness for liturgy, I do think it is the same with other instruments. But again, who is the one in authority to say when the playing of an instrument has been rendered enough to be considered appropriate? As it seems to me, even those in authority are ignored when the bishop or the diocese’s director of worship has made a call on this.

Sometimes I think that this is the case of choosing your battles. There are so many other issues and problems that the Church needs to address. What is and is not deemed appropriate for music liturgy is probably lower on the list.

 

[pnewton]

But they’re not disqualified. As to them being stupid and absurd, is that your opinion or is that Church teaching?

If you are a kazooist, then I apologize for any offense.

In areas that the Catholic Church allows discretion, argument from exaggerations so far out that they have never happened, area really nothing more than a straw man.

 

[Brendan_64]

If you are a kazooist, then I apologize for any offense.

And so you should. You should hear me belt out “Morning has broken” on the kazoo. I think we ought to include as a regular feature at Sunday morning Mass in our parish.

 

[Havard]

But they’re not disqualified. As to them being stupid and absurd, is that your opinion or is that Church teaching?

I’d say reasoning, by way of the Natural Law.

 

[Elizium23]

The Director of Worship studied in Rome and they wanted to follow as closely as they could with what Rome wanted. I freelance in many parishes, know many of the musicians and I know that very few parishes do all of this. There was a lot of pushback from the music directors. Many music directors who wanted to follow what the bishop wanted were met with resistance from their pastors and congregations. If they wanted to keep their jobs, they had to comply and obey the pastor. But then, they were basically forced to disobey the authority of the DofW for the diocese and the bishop.

It’s more than that. The pastors are not tin-plated dictators demanding this type of music for their parishioners. They are listening to the needs of the people themselves. And many, many people tell us that they love the folk and contemporary music.

Our choir has been working particularly hard on some classical pieces such as Mozart’s “Ave Verum Corpus”, Arcadelt’s “Ave Maria” and Robat Arwyn’s “Benedictus”. We have been premiering these pieces once a week when the choir is full enough to give them adequate treatment. “Benedictus” was in particular a labor of love for me, as it was a duet where I carried half the piece alone. After we did the Arcadelt piece one Sunday, a lady came up to me and cooed about how much she liked the “old music” she liked to listen to when she was younger. That music to which she referred would be the renditions of “Be Not Afraid” and “On Eagle’s Wings” we did for Entrance and Recessional. I really wanted to slam my face into the desk at that point, but that’s what people want.

Our bishop wrote a four-part series on singing the Mass, in which he stressed the importance of musical forms which the Church prefers, gives a history of liturgical music, and explains the importance of the proper antiphons. He hired on a director/composer who had written Simple English Propers and who followed up with the Lumen Christi Missal. The Cathedral began to implement chanted propers and our pastor hatched a plan to purchase the LCM for our pews and discard the 20-year-old Gather hymnals. Well, that went over like a lead balloon in our parish. Many parishioners raised an outcry and said they paid good money for Gather and why did it have to be taken away? Our choir director dutifully began deploying chanted antiphons and within a few weeks lost his job and was replaced by someone who expressed clear distaste for the LCM and Gregorian chant. In fact we had an entire parade of directors who did not like the Missal and kept us on a steady repertoire of OCP.

For most of our pastor’s nine years here we have used Latin chant settings of the Mass parts, and last Easter we added the Missa de Angelis Gloria in Latin. We refer English-speakers to the readings in the LCM, so some parts of the LCM are being used. Gather is forever gone from our pews, but for the most part, implementation of the Lumen Christi Missal with its proper antiphons and plainchant splendor is on indefinite hold, and it is not by the wishes of Rome, or our bishop or our pastor, but by popular acclaim by the parishioners, who are getting 80% OCP material now, much to my dismay.

This is exactly why I say that people who appreciate the forms of music and instruments preferred by the Church documents need to make their preferences known and foster appreciation for them among all Catholics. The priests and bishops will not impose this music on us until we are clamoring for it and railing against the banal pop hymns, weak theology and profane instruments which pass for liturgical worship today. I suggest that we go about this not in a spirit of complaint or disobedience, but in respectful deference to the governance of ecclesial authorities, and in patient charity to others, and mainly positive affirmation of good priests and bishops who make the right choices for liturgy, those who uphold the rubrics and those who think with the mind of the Church.

 

[Elizium23]

If you are a kazooist, then I apologize for any offense.

In areas that the Catholic Church allows discretion, argument from exaggerations so far out that they have never happened, area really nothing more than a straw man.

What if I told you that the progenitors of the “Vatican II Folk Mass” began by singing Simon and Garfunkel for the liturgy? Have you ever been to a wedding planning session and heard what songs are requested for their nuptial rites? There is truly little exaggeration that must be done when it comes to Catholic liturgical music.

Sometimes I am tempted to request “Be Not Afraid” “Shepherd Me, O God” and “On Eagle’s Wings” for my own funeral just so that the ministers and people present will forget me as soon as possible. Because that trio of songs is so trite yet so well-loved that everyone else requests them too. I have little hope of getting my true wishes for a funeral liturgy.

 

[pnewton]

What if I told you that the progenitors of the “Vatican II Folk Mass” began by singing Simon and Garfunkel for the liturgy? Have you ever been to a wedding planning session and heard what songs are requested for their nuptial rites?

No, I have never heard Simon and Garfunkel at Mass. Yes, I have heard secular love songs requested at weddings and had them done just prior to the wedding, though not on a kazoo.

 

[Brendan_64]

No, I have never heard Simon and Garfunkel at Mass. Yes, I have heard secular love songs requested at weddings and had them done just prior to the wedding, though not on a kazoo.

Maybe if we were more like this it would bring more people into our churches?

youtube.com/watch?v=tUiM4Bli-1I

 

[Sarabande]

It’s more than that. The pastors are not tin-plated dictators demanding this type of music for their parishioners. They are listening to the needs of the people themselves. And many, many people tell us that they love the folk and contemporary music.

Oh, yes, I should have made that more clear in the post. I thought I did by mentioning the congregations, but I agree. Much of the time, the pastors are doing what will keep the people in the pews. I know for a previous parish of mine, the pastor actually sent out surveys of what the parishioners wanted for music at mass because people were withholding money to the parish due to the music there.

Our choir has been working particularly hard on some classical pieces such as Mozart’s “Ave Verum Corpus”, Arcadelt’s “Ave Maria” and Robat Arwyn’s “Benedictus”. We have been premiering these pieces once a week when the choir is full enough to give them adequate treatment. “Benedictus” was in particular a labor of love for me, as it was a duet where I carried half the piece alone. After we did the Arcadelt piece one Sunday, a lady came up to me and cooed about how much she liked the “old music” she liked to listen to when she was younger. That music to which she referred would be the renditions of “Be Not Afraid” and “On Eagle’s Wings” we did for Entrance and Recessional. I really wanted to slam my face into the desk at that point, but that’s what people want.

I’m so sorry about that, and the Arcadelt is a lovely piece as well. It’s weird, we recently had a different experience at one of the parishes where I work. Since they got other better trained singers, the music director and the pastor has begun to do more classical sacred repertoire. We did a special Sunday with all of that and since then many people have been asking for more of it. So, it will be happening more often.

Our bishop wrote a four-part series on singing the Mass, in which he stressed the importance of musical forms which the Church prefers, gives a history of liturgical music, and explains the importance of the proper antiphons. He hired on a director/composer who had written Simple English Propers and who followed up with the Lumen Christi Missal. The Cathedral began to implement chanted propers and our pastor hatched a plan to purchase the LCM for our pews and discard the 20-year-old Gather hymnals. Well, that went over like a lead balloon in our parish. Many parishioners raised an outcry and said they paid good money for Gather and why did it have to be taken away? Our choir director dutifully began deploying chanted antiphons and within a few weeks lost his job and was replaced by someone who expressed clear distaste for the LCM and Gregorian chant. In fact we had an entire parade of directors who did not like the Missal and kept us on a steady repertoire of OCP.

I’m very sorry for you previous choir director. I wasn’t around, but my older colleagues told me about something very similar with organists and other musicians back in the 70s and even in the 80s. Many lost their jobs in favor of what was going on back then in liturgical music. So, we lost a lot of Catholic organists to the mainline Protestant churches.

For most of our pastor’s nine years here we have used Latin chant settings of the Mass parts, and last Easter we added the Missa de Angelis Gloria in Latin. We refer English-speakers to the readings in the LCM, so some parts of the LCM are being used. Gather is forever gone from our pews, but for the most part, implementation of the Lumen Christi Missal with its proper antiphons and plainchant splendor is on indefinite hold, and it is not by the wishes of Rome, or our bishop or our pastor, but by popular acclaim by the parishioners, who are getting 80% OCP material now, much to my dismay.

Well, the good part is that you have been using Latin chant settings for the mass parts. That’s a huge feat.

This is exactly why I say that people who appreciate the forms of music and instruments preferred by the Church documents need to make their preferences known and foster appreciation for them among all Catholics. The priests and bishops will not impose this music on us until we are clamoring for it and railing against the banal pop hymns, weak theology and profane instruments which pass for liturgical worship today. I suggest that we go about this not in a spirit of complaint or disobedience, but in respectful deference to the governance of ecclesial authorities, and in patient charity to others, and mainly positive affirmation of good priests and bishops who make the right choices for liturgy, those who uphold the rubrics and those who think with the mind of the Church.

Agreed. All that you said is why I don’t think just saying to obey your bishop is so easy. I do think that if you start with the young, it will help build that appreciation, but then you have to convince the adults to allow the music teachers to help teach them. That said, whenever parents see their adorable, little ones sing or play something and do it well (for kids, at least), it makes it easier for them to appreciate the “unknown”.

 

[Elizium23]

My community chorus once did this for Christmas. Perhaps it would fly liturgically. Possibly not in our diocese. Maybe we can ask Archbishop +Sample for recommendations.

Liturgical pioneers bring music to Frankenmuth that helped redefine the Catholic church

“Up until then, music was directed at the people rather than inviting them to participate,” Haas said, calling from his home in Minnesota. “We’d play Peter, Paul and Mary and Simon and Garfunkel at first because we didn’t have music of our own to play yet, but everything we did invited everyone to sing along.

“The church was redefining its identity and the Catholic experience; it was an interesting time.”

The music was controversial – “Was?” Haas said, giving a short laugh – but for millions of people, the songs that came out of that period are now mainstays of the church. Joncas, who entered the priesthood, penned “On Eagle’s Wings” and Haas was nominated for a Grammy Award in 1991 for “I Shall See God.”

There you have it, right from the horse’s mouth, a profound misunderstanding of actuosa participatio.

 

[pnewton]

The priests and bishops will not impose this music on us until we are clamoring for it and railing against the banal pop hymns, weak theology and profane instruments which pass for liturgical worship today…

I think the quote thing got messed up.

However, this really is unlikely. If a bishop or priest agreed that something was profane, we would not have it now. Again, the latest document removed the word “profane” in favor of the more flexible “suitable”. We can go around and around, but the above statement is still circular (that it, begging the question) and extra laps do not give it more weight.

 

[Elizium23]

I think the quote thing got messed up.

However, this really is unlikely. If a bishop or priest agreed that something was profane, we would not have it now. Again, the latest document removed the word “profane” in favor of the more flexible “suitable”. We can go around and around, but the above statement is still circular (that it, begging the question) and extra laps do not give it more weight.

120 bishops and 32,000 priests could agree that the kazoo is profane and it still might be allowed in 35 dioceses around the United States. That’s the issue with the principle of subsidiarity here, that with the very generalized, vague guidelines being laid down from the top, the local parish gets plenty of margin for error.

There is nothing circular about my assertion that banal pop hymns, weak theology and profane instruments exist. It is provable. We’ve had whole threads on “Sing a New Church” and “Gather Us In” and “For the Healing of the Nations”. I just put up with “I Received the Living God” and “I Heard the Voice of Jesus Say” which, in case you haven’t heard them, are prime examples of Banal Ditties Which Put Words Into God’s Mouth. Jesus is quoted as saying all kinds of things that are looooose paraphrases of Gospel quotes and he comes off as the fluffiest hippie ehvurrrr. Occasionally our pastor is known to veto hymns and I’m surprised these both passed. If I see them again I will be the one complaining - and that is something I rarely do, my posts here notwithstanding.

And let us not pretend that Vatican II rewrote Tradition and excised the term “profane” from its proper usage. Just have a look at this overview of Church documents on music in which the term “profane” is aptly used to describe that which is not sacred. Don’t get hung up on the modern, common connotation that “profane” means “obscene”, it just means, not suited for sacred use.

And I have a question. When a priest or bishop permits a particular instrument, that is “judged by common opinion so proper to profane music that they are entirely unfit for sacred use” can he said to be merely ignoring common opinion instead of the rubrics of the Church?

 

[pnewton]

There is nothing circular about my assertion that banal pop hymns, weak theology and profane instruments exist. It is provable

I am believe your use of the word “provable” can not be applied in and area such as this. Evidence can be presented, but even a lot of evidence is not proof. Your claim that your assertion is not circular, is something that I can not agree with. Yet here it is. You say it isn’t. I say it is. No need to argue over it.

I have no desire to discuss the kazoo straw man any further. I am well aware that the Church’s instructions on instruments have changed, and changed a lot, over the centuries. That is why I do not read earlier documents except for general principles and historical perspective. I do not abide by any disciplinary rules that are passé.

Anyone who is seriously dealing with this topic, in the real world, needs to follow their bishop and priest. Nothing else is worth sweating, unless you really enjoy sweat.

 

[phil19034]

I wish they would just bring back Latin Chant.

I love Ave Maria and other chants in Latin. They are so beautiful. But I also love Mozart, Bach, Strauss, Chopin, Brahams, etc.

I don’t like Guitar in Church. Organ only please.

 

[Elizium23]

I am well aware that the Church’s instructions on instruments have changed, and changed a lot, over the centuries. That is why I do not read earlier documents except for general principles and historical perspective. I do not abide by any disciplinary rules that are passé.

My assessment of the instructions on instruments is that they have changed very little. Most notably, there is always a distinction between those which are sacred or suitable, and those which are profane and unsuitable. Some modicum of change is, of course, to be expected, as the technology and culture of musical instruments is one which changes and evolves over the centuries. But it’s a slow change, and I think the Church has recognized this in her applications. I don’t think it is fair or right to simply discard more than a thousand years of carefully cultivated tradition and call it “passé disciplinary rules”.

I think the modern lack of a universal list of prohibited, profane instruments is in recognition that the far-flung reaches of the Church are culturally distinct and there is no “one size fits all”. I think the Church intends to observe the principle of subsidiarity. I think that it would be a good idea for episcopal conferences to foster the sacred arts by forming commissions and subsidizing education and appreciation for music, art, and architecture. By the same token, those commissions could have an advisory capacity in drawing up documents which more clearly outline the guidelines for sacred art within the boundaries of their authority. Pope Francis is looking toward a more synodal and collegial structure, this is a good place to start looking for local leadership in these issues.

There is much more to be done than “obey your bishop” here. There is genuine work for every musician, parent, and music lover to foster appreciation for music and act as an evangelist for the sacred arts and that which is most strongly suited for liturgical worship. So the next time a banal pop song with weak theology comes at us, let’s not insult the pastor or complain to the bishop, let us ask ourselves if we have done enough at home to promote noble musical styles so that they are seen to be in demand in our diocese.

 

[clem456]

I wish they would just bring back Latin Chant.

I love Ave Maria and other chants in Latin. They are so beautiful. But I also love Mozart, Bach, Strauss, Chopin, Brahams, etc.

I don’t like Guitar in Church. Organ only please.

I’m with you. Pipe organ all day long. Beautiful sacred music.

Those are my wishes. For whatever they are worth, which is just about zilch in the grand scheme of things. My wishes are always subordinate to God, the authority of his Church, and the wishes of others.

 

[pnewton]

. I don’t think it is fair or right to simply discard more than a thousand years of carefully cultivated tradition and call it “passé disciplinary rules”.

By “passé” I mean no longer applicable. Disciplines do change. That is why we have new documents. Fortunately, I have no issue with guitars in Mass. They are perfectly acceptable. It is sufficient that I concern myself with my priest, my bishop and what the people at my parish want. I simply would go nuts if I tried to please people here, none of which will ever darken our doors. If they do, they are welcome to take over.

The answer to the question remains the same, the instruments that are permitted are those which the authority over that area deem suitable. That is the current and *only *standard.