When did guitar become permitted at Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter victrolatim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In my neck of the woods, Eastern Canada, the guitar made its appearance in the 60s with the advent of the “Folk Mass.” This was at first seen at school Masses where young musicians of the day only knew how to play the guitar and that was the accompaniment used with songs such as “Let It Be Me,” “Kumbaya,” and “Michael Row the Boat Ashore.”

This eventually made its way to the parish level and at least one Mass per Sunday became designated as the Folk Mass and was the one most teens attended. In no time at all you were hard pressed to find a traditional hymn at any Mass and the organ was more or less abandoned in favour of the guitar and sometimes the piano. Now it’s a rare parish that even has an organist.

Of course we’ve also gone from an area that used to have 12 - 15 priests for 10 parishes with multiple Masses each Sunday to an area that now has 9 parishes but only 1 priest. 7 of those 9 parishes have only 1 Mass per month; 1 has a Mass every Saturday evening and 1 has a Mass every Sunday. I dare say that the one that has Mass every Saturday is the one with the largest and most recently built church (mid 60s). It would be the easiest one to heat and maintain. Most of the others have traditionally built churches dating back to the 1920s.
 
We had jazz musicians for a while. They played Just A Closer Walk with Thee, and some other hymns. This lasted about a year. Now that was not as solemn. Pretty music but not for a Mass.
 
I thought the guitar was first used at Mass when the organ in Fr. Muller’s church on Christmas and wrote Silent Night?
 
It is not guitar versus organ. It is the music associated with the instrument.

The organ played by a polka entertainer is no different than a guitar played by a country and western entertainer.

Now, this is strictly my own opinion as I see it: The problem with the above is in the word “entertainer”. When there is the entertaining element thrown in, Mass become a show highlighting the entertainer and the “audience’s” response to the entertainer.

In my own opinion: Entertaining is a fine and wonderful thing and entertainers give the world a great deal of joy and community love and spirit . I believe that Mass is a different time and place. I believe that music should not try to draw attention to itself but toward God. Of course beautiful music well done will always draw some attention to itself but that should not be the goal of the musician. It is a fine line and one hard to find.
 
HelenRose said:
It is not guitar versus organ. It is the music associated with the instrument.

The organ played by a polka entertainer is no different than a guitar played by a country and western entertainer.

Now, this is strictly my own opinion as I see it: The problem with the above is in the word “entertainer”. When there is the entertaining element thrown in, Mass become a show highlighting the entertainer and the “audience’s” response to the entertainer.

In my own opinion: Entertaining is a fine and wonderful thing and entertainers give the world a great deal of joy and community love and spirit . I believe that Mass is a different time and place. I believe that music should not try to draw attention to itself but toward God. Of course beautiful music well done will always draw some attention to itself but that should not be the goal of the musician. It is a fine line and one hard to find.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

Check this out. The local church is about 300 meters away from that green and yellow tent.
facebook.com/events/699333563492763/
 
I heard (from an organist) that the pipe organ was banned from Catholic churches up until the mid-1700s. :confused:

It made sense when he told me. 🤷
 
on_the_hill said:
I heard (from an organist) that the pipe organ was banned from Catholic churches up until the mid-1700s. :confused:

It made sense when he told me. 🤷
Click to expand...
No, the organ began appearing in monasteries and churches in the 8th century. By the middle of the medieval period they were already quite common.
 
HelenRose said:
Psalms 92:3

To declare Your loving kindness in the morning And Your faithfulness by night, 3:With the ten-stringed lute and with the harp, With resounding music upon the lyre. 4: For You, O LORD, have made me glad by what You have done, I will sing for joy at the works of Your hands.…

Through out the Bible you will find that a Lute (a stringed instrument) is used to praise God.

The guitar is nothing more that a modern lute.

I go around and around with this question in my own mind. We have a “Guitar” Mass occasionally in our Mission Church and I personally dislike it in the extreme.

But, it isn’t because of the guitar.

It is because the musicians involved are putting on a “rip snorting” show. I don’t even try to explain to these musicians, who are my friends, whom I love etc… why I object to it. They are “singing” praises to God and for the life of me I can’t come up with a viable argument except that it is not appropriate for Mass.

The music is definitely appropriate for a wonderful fun filled youth gathering outside of Mass. I am just grateful that it is only for one Sunday a month and only for half of the year because the guitarist is a snow bird and leaves in the winter.
Click to expand...
(What does “rip snorting” mean?)

You know, I am with you there - I dislike it a lot. I agree with you that guitar music is definitely appropriate for pretty much anything you want outside of Mass…but in terms of actually at Mass, sometimes I don’t really know how to approach the issue, since so many people are going to say they love it and “feel closer to God” or “feel spiritually enriched” by it. So some people are really attached to it and it has potential to be a hard subject to discuss. I also really dislike that a quote that “pro-guitar Mass” people use a lot is from the Psalms as you quoted above. I mean really, sure some aspects of our Liturgy go back to Old Testament/Pre-Christ practices, but the objective of the Church in her Liturgy is not to imitate every single ancient Jewish or early Christian practice. If you want to play guitar at Mass, I think there are better ways to support the practice than by quoting Psalms (though of course my opinion is that there are more ways, and better ways, to NOT support the use of guitar than to support it).

There are so many aspects to this issue. So many people are going to say things about “difference in musical taste” and you know what, fine. I 100% disagree that a difference in musical taste should have any effect on what music is played at Mass, since the Church has preferences/ideals for which I believe every individual parish should at least be striving, if not actually fulfilling, and I think sacred music is another thing which needs to stop being affected by that “everything goes” attitude which has infiltrated our Liturgy and in general in our world today.
 
caitlinm said:
My parish only uses the guitar on “special days” when there are a lot of young people and kids present. Maybe it’s to help keep their attention. 😃
Click to expand...
Yeah, see, I have a problem with this attitude, too - that we feel as if we need to “help [kids] keep their attention” during Mass through the music. It should all boil down to, what is the purpose of sacred music, not how can we keep the kids’ attention.
HelenRose said:
It is not guitar versus organ. It is the music associated with the instrument.

The organ played by a polka entertainer is no different than a guitar played by a country and western entertainer.

Now, this is strictly my own opinion as I see it: The problem with the above is in the word “entertainer”. When there is the entertaining element thrown in, Mass become a show highlighting the entertainer and the “audience’s” response to the entertainer.

In my own opinion: Entertaining is a fine and wonderful thing and entertainers give the world a great deal of joy and community love and spirit . I believe that Mass is a different time and place. I believe that music should not try to draw attention to itself but toward God. Of course beautiful music well done will always draw some attention to itself but that should not be the goal of the musician. It is a fine line and one hard to find.
Click to expand...
Yeah, your first sentence is why I think the actual style used is important, and I think that in general, it is more a particular STYLE of music that the Church prefers/strongly supports rather than particular instruments. I think in the past that the Church has forbidden a small handful of instruments, though I don’t know the current status, but one thing I know the Church HAS requested/mandated is that the style of sacred music NOT reflect any secular style. It is my opinion that almost any use of the guitar will reflect a secular style and therefore undermine the purpose/essence of the Mass and the sacredness of a Church. Notice I said ALMOST though…I am willing to concede that some non-intrusive guitar music is “reverent” enough/non-secular - like some Classical guitar music - but that it is still best that other proven, less-doubtful style of music be used.

I believe that many people who play guitar at Mass are well-meaning and don’t particularly mean to do what I more or less “accuse” them of in the above paragraph; but in a world where “everything goes” and where the sense of the sacred seems to very low and belief, even among Catholics, in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ is quite low, I think it is best to err on the side of tradition in this instance - that is, tried and true practices which have been known to be effective, and which countless saints have known.
 
bobballen_18 said:
Yeah, see, I have a problem with this attitude, too - that we feel as if we need to “help [kids] keep their attention” during Mass through the music. It should all boil down to, what is the purpose of sacred music, not how can we keep the kids’ attention.

Yeah, your first sentence is why I think the actual style used is important, and I think that in general, it is more a particular STYLE of music that the Church prefers/strongly supports rather than particular instruments. I think in the past that the Church has forbidden a small handful of instruments, though I don’t know the current status, but one thing I know the Church HAS requested/mandated is that the style of sacred music NOT reflect any secular style. It is my opinion that almost any use of the guitar will reflect a secular style and therefore undermine the purpose/essence of the Mass and the sacredness of a Church. Notice I said ALMOST though…I am willing to concede that some non-intrusive guitar music is “reverent” enough/non-secular - like some Classical guitar music - but that it is still best that other proven, less-doubtful style of music be used.

I believe that many people who play guitar at Mass are well-meaning and don’t particularly mean to do what I more or less “accuse” them of in the above paragraph; but in a world where “everything goes” and where the sense of the sacred seems to very low and belief, even among Catholics, in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ is quite low, I think it is best to err on the side of tradition in this instance - that is, tried and true practices which have been known to be effective, and which countless saints have known.
Click to expand...
You need to listen to more classical guitar music and you may change your mind. Although I do not play my guitar for church, I love playing “Regina Coeli”, “Slave Regina” and other beautiful sacred songs on the guitar at home. But I do understand what you are saying.

Part of the problem is, much of the truly sacred music is very difficult to play. Gregorian Chant chanted poorly is far worse than “On Eagles Wings” done poorly. Reasonably good musicians can present songs like “On Eagles Wings” with dignity and grace. There are not many people who can do the same with chants. They look easy. Well done they sound beautiful and sound easy. But they are not easy. I am certain that the reason many people object to Gregorian Chant is in large part the fact they have only heard them sung by amateurs who could not do justice to them.

Unless a Church can afford a well trained profession musician, the musicians who have volunteered their time and talents do the best they can with the talents they have.

This is a debate that swirls around my congregation. But, I have noticed that most of the people who complain, one way or the other, don’t volunteer to lead the singing themselves. It is certainly easier to complain about the music than to put the time and effort into it learning it and volunteering to help.
 
HelenRose said:
This is a debate that swirls around my congregation. But, I have noticed that most of the people who complain, one way or the other, don’t volunteer to lead the singing themselves. It is certainly easier to complain about the music than to put the time and effort into it learning it and volunteering to help.
Click to expand...
But that’s just it. How do you get people to volunteer when their hearts just aren’t into it?
 
bobballen_18 said:
Yeah, see, I have a problem with this attitude, too - that we feel as if we need to “help [kids] keep their attention” during Mass through the music. It should all boil down to, what is the purpose of sacred music, not how can we keep the kids’ attention.

Yeah, your first sentence is why I think the actual style used is important, and I think that in general, it is more a particular STYLE of music that the Church prefers/strongly supports rather than particular instruments. I think in the past that the Church has forbidden a small handful of instruments, though I don’t know the current status, but one thing I know the Church HAS requested/mandated is that the style of sacred music NOT reflect any secular style. It is my opinion that almost any use of the guitar will reflect a secular style and therefore undermine the purpose/essence of the Mass and the sacredness of a Church. Notice I said ALMOST though…I am willing to concede that some non-intrusive guitar music is “reverent” enough/non-secular - like some Classical guitar music - but that it is still best that other proven, less-doubtful style of music be used.

I believe that many people who play guitar at Mass are well-meaning and don’t particularly mean to do what I more or less “accuse” them of in the above paragraph; but in a world where “everything goes” and where the sense of the sacred seems to very low and belief, even among Catholics, in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ is quite low, I think it is best to err on the side of tradition in this instance - that is, tried and true practices which have been known to be effective, and which countless saints have known.
Click to expand...
I can understand that you have preferences. But as far as “tried and true practices which have been known to be effective, and which countless saints have known”, let’s take one that puts my teeth on edge: Palistrina. He lived from about 1515 to about 1594, so his music has been around for 350+ years, and he wrote Masses. Some consider him the greatest composer of liturgical music, period.

I won’t argue with their analysis or grading. However, I have been to Masses where the choir sang a Palistrina Mass, and I went to Mass again that weekend because I found the music to be so distracting, and (because the choir was professional), such a “show” that it was like a concert being given, never mind the Mass.

There were people who absolutely raved about it; and I have no doubt that it made their socks roll up and down. But the music is so complex, and the parts so lend themselves to “showing off” that I was completely put off. And I will lay you dollars to donuts that plenty of saints have heard that music over the centuries.

I am not going to criticize you as to your taste in liturgical music. If it lifts your heart to God, then I wish you a plentitude of it. Likewise, it is good to remember that through the centuries, liturgical music has waxed and waned; new styles have come, and have gone, and with each new style, there has been those who disdained it, until it became popular with others.

It may be that you cannot see your way to sing the new songs, the great majority of which are from the Old and New Testaments put to music. I am not going to pick that bone with you; everyone has their likes and dislikes. Having been part of a schola which cut a record of Gregorian chant in about 1965, I can say that I love Gregorian chant done properly, and a whole lot of it I have heard since then is done somewhere between mediocre and abysmally poorly. That, too, I prefer not to suffer through during Mass.

Much of what is considered “traditional” liturgical music requires people with trained voices, who have a lot of time to practice; and IMHO, too often it comes out sounding like a concert. That is my opinion. I would never say that it should not be done, or that anyone who goes to a Mass with that music is engaging in anything other than proper worship. But I won’t go; and I have had enough experience to note that for meit comes off as a concert and is exceedingly distracting. That is me - and not necessarily anyone else.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion; but they are just that - opinions. It is helpful to remember that what lifts one person up may not lift another, and there should be no judgments made over those who do not have the same reaction or opinion.
 
(Part 1)
HelenRose said:
You need to listen to more classical guitar music and you may change your mind. Although I do not play my guitar for church, I love playing “Regina Coeli”, “Slave Regina” and other beautiful sacred songs on the guitar at home. But I do understand what you are saying.

Part of the problem is, much of the truly sacred music is very difficult to play. Gregorian Chant chanted poorly is far worse than “On Eagles Wings” done poorly. Reasonably good musicians can present songs like “On Eagles Wings” with dignity and grace. There are not many people who can do the same with chants. They look easy. Well done they sound beautiful and sound easy. But they are not easy. I am certain that the reason many people object to Gregorian Chant is in large part the fact they have only heard them sung by amateurs who could not do justice to them.
Click to expand...
Well, note that I did say that “I am willing to concede…that some guitar music” can be acceptable.

I hear you there, on the point that Gregorian chant can be done badly. And this is probably the only case in which I think personal taste has much merit…but I would personally rather hear a (bad) attempt at Gregorian chant than a great “performance” of On Eagles Wings, so long as the choir is doing their best. I will always give the benefit of the doubt to people who are trying to strive for the Church’s preferences/ideals.
otjm said:
I can understand that you have preferences. But as far as “tried and true practices which have been known to be effective, and which countless saints have known”, let’s take one that puts my teeth on edge: Palistrina. He lived from about 1515 to about 1594, so his music has been around for 350+ years, and he wrote Masses. Some consider him the greatest composer of liturgical music, period.

I won’t argue with their analysis or grading. However, I have been to Masses where the choir sang a Palistrina Mass, and I went to Mass again that weekend because I found the music to be so distracting, and (because the choir was professional), such a “show” that it was like a concert being given, never mind the Mass.

There were people who absolutely raved about it; and I have no doubt that it made their socks roll up and down. But the music is so complex, and the parts so lend themselves to “showing off” that I was completely put off. And I will lay you dollars to donuts that plenty of saints have heard that music over the centuries.

I am not going to criticize you as to your taste in liturgical music. If it lifts your heart to God, then I wish you a plentitude of it. Likewise, it is good to remember that through the centuries, liturgical music has waxed and waned; new styles have come, and have gone, and with each new style, there has been those who disdained it, until it became popular with others.

It may be that you cannot see your way to sing the new songs, the great majority of which are from the Old and New Testaments put to music. I am not going to pick that bone with you; everyone has their likes and dislikes. Having been part of a schola which cut a record of Gregorian chant in about 1965, I can say that I love Gregorian chant done properly, and a whole lot of it I have heard since then is done somewhere between mediocre and abysmally poorly. That, too, I prefer not to suffer through during Mass.

Much of what is considered “traditional” liturgical music requires people with trained voices, who have a lot of time to practice; and IMHO, too often it comes out sounding like a concert. That is my opinion. I would never say that it should not be done, or that anyone who goes to a Mass with that music is engaging in anything other than proper worship. But I won’t go; and I have had enough experience to note that for meit comes off as a concert and is exceedingly distracting. That is me - and not necessarily anyone else.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion; but they are just that - opinions. It is helpful to remember that what lifts one person up may not lift another, and there should be no judgments made over those who do not have the same reaction or opinion.
Click to expand...
Oh no doubt, certainly “traditional” music (i.e. polyphony particuarly, and even Gregorian Chant) can also be presented as more of a “show” than anything else. I will not deny that. I don’t want to downplay that you perceive some “traditional” music during Mass to be a show. I know I feel the same way sometimes about, say, guitar music during Mass - that I sometimes perceive it as “showy” or “performance-like” even when the musicians themselves aren’t meaning it in that way.

What I object to in your post is that my preferences/opinions (in this matter) are only that - preferences…because in this particular case, my preferences also happen to be what the Church’s preferences are (at least, that is what my argument is).

My whole thing is, I wish that everyone would put their preferences aside and at least hope/strive for what the Church’s preferences are. I think one would be very hard pressed to claim that the Church’s preferences/ideals for Sacred Music are NOT Gregorian Chant especially, and also polyphony to a lesser degree.
(continued…)
 
(Part 2)
I think it’s obvious that some people have different preferences - I’m not denying that. What I’m saying, and I realize that in a certain sense I have this easy (from my view of things since I view my preferences on this particular matter as mostly one with the Church’s), is that the Catholic Church in general is not about getting the Church to conform to one’s personal preferences - it is about conforming oneself to Jesus and his teachings. In many/most cases, this will be about denying oneself, denying one’s own preferences in favor of the Church’s. And I know some people will argue with me on that specific point (Sacred Music) - saying that there’s leeway for other “styles” of music other than “traditional” Catholic Sacred Music - sure, you can argue that. But I just want to encourage people to challenge their own preferences and see if they are in line with what the Church has traditionally thought/promoted.

As a side note, I want to comment - please believe me, I’m not trying to trumpet/brag about the fact that I believe my musical tastes are in line with the Church’s preferences and/or ideals for Sacred Music. By posting here on this particular subject, I beg of you to believe me that I’m not trying to say I’m “holier than thou” because of this. I assure you I have my own struggles, of which one could comment my “preferences are not in line with the Catholic Church”.

One final note - I totally can see myself sympathetic to those who prefer “non-traditional” music. As I noted in an earlier post, sometimes I have trouble “sticking to my guns” with regards to my views of the Church’s ideals of Sacred Music. I realize the same position could be taken opposite of my view (possibly), but however: 1) there is much to be said for trying to conform to the Church’s ideals, as long as one is doing their best; 2) isn’t it weird that something which has been quoted in Church documents as being next in line to Gregorian chant in terms of Sacred Music (polyphony) could be perceived as a “performance”? Yet what are we to expect of this kind of music? Take you for example, otjm - have you ever heard polyphony which didn’t sound like a “performance”? What would it take for polyphony to not sound like a performance to you? Would it have to sound bad/unprofessional for it to not sound like a performance? 3) Is it possible that when we hear the Church’s ideal for sacred music done well - i.e., polyphony and Gregorian Chant - that this is actually what the Church hopes to attain in more places than not? And it’s not just some performance/nearly perfectly done setting? And not for just some select places? Why is it that the Church claims Gregorian Chant is the music proper to the Roman Liturgy? Sure, there’s something to be said for, say, guitar music being done in some places when it is the best they can offer. I don’t mean to actually literally judge them for doing that. My whole issue is with whether there are any future plans to incorporate/switch to more traditional Church Music, and not to just settle for what is simply “allowed” or “tolerated”.

Then there’s the whole deal with different countries and their separate culture…ok fine, if you’re from, I don’t know, Africa, then we’re talking. But Europe? No, the whole “traditional” history of Sacred Music developed there. And Americas? No, they are a part of Western Civilization from which the development of the Church and its Sacred Music has its origin. I feel like the (vast?) majority of people posting here are Roman Catholic and/or from some sort of Western Civilization-based origin. I don’t know, I feel a bit less qualified to talk about different cultures. So I should probably stop there. Lol.
 
It is interesting that in the documents of Vatican 2, they speak of Gregorian chant having “pride of place”. I have heard elsewhere, and on more than just an occasion, that Gregorian chant was on its way out before Vatican 2 (and I will let musicologists have at that discussion), and pretty much was a forgotten form until the Spanish monks put out their CD - which of course hit at least one if not several public charts.

It is however, still pretty much a non-show. I remember our local Trappist abbey chanting the Office and the Mass in Latin, before Vatican 2. Now they chant, in English, and to tell you the truth, there is more prayer than music now - not because of any issue of Latin/English, but rather because of the age of the monks, which, if I was to hazard a guess, might be closer to an average of 70 than of 60. Perhaps even higher.

V2 came first; the Ordinary Form second, and it is anybody’s guess, were there to be a council now, if Gregorian chant would even be mentioned.

And I suspect that on a practical level, that with exceptions of parishes which have the Extraordinary Form, one would be hard pressed to find 5% of parishes nationwide which have had Gregorian chant once in the last 12 months - that would be about 850 parishes. One might find it at a cathedral possibly.

So yes, I am aware of Vatican 2’s comment about sacred music. And I don’t want to sidetrack the discussion into what the bishops of the world intended or did not intend, in terms either of music or the form of the Mass. But the fact is, it is unlikely that we will see a change towards more traditional music for any foreseeable future. That is not to say that is right, but rather, simply factually accurate.

And as to Europe, with weekly attendance rates at or below 5%, Pope benedict had clear vision when he spoke of a remnant Church. The likelihood of any leadership from there appears to be somewhere between zero and none.

Your comment about other cultures is interesting in light of the fact that an area showing some of the greatest growth in the Church is in Africa. And not a few prelates have said their piece about the “Europization” of Arica.

I think we are in a sea change of culture, not only in terms of the g3eneral populace, but also within the Roman rite. Much of the culture seemed fairly steady for a good number of centuries, but that stated to change a bit toward the end of the 1800,s, and received some impetus from Pope Pius X, which has grown larger, and faster, ever since. Europe may hold the great majority of the history of the Church, but its time “at bat” has come and gone. a great deal of that history also included Italian Popes, and that, too, has significantly altered. I don’t believe that our history is being relegated to books on a shelf, but the norm certainly has changed. How that plays out with sacred music is something that our grandchildren may be able to see with more clarity than we who are in the middle of the changes.

I still love Gregorian chant. And both our local Trappist abbey and Benedictine abbey will continue to hold a significant place in my spirituality. But you are welcome to my share of Palestrina.
 
]As people of their times, countless saints have also known Latin, corrupt popes, forced conversions, killing of heretics, persecution in some cases and outside the Church, disease, no plumbing, monarchies, and funny looking clothes. They were people of their times.

I cannot really think, when I consider most of the saints I know, that their sanctity was somehow achieved only because they had the grace to be born before guitars, or the organ, or the piano. I do not know how the argument could be made that there is any sort of correlation, or causation, between sanctity and musical traditions, as we do not know what sort of saints will arise out of the world today.

I think this is akin to the questions, “What would Jesus do?” While this is a great way to examine oneself, it only is good for that, as our answer is only a reflection of our own opinion when the topic is something that can only be known in the world today.

However, I do have one saintly clue. It would seem that St. Paul, when he addressed this issue, gave a range that covered most all that was out there during his time when he said. “but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top