Guitar Music at Mass

[Peace]

23 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

Consider it sad if you want, but you must consider that your point of view has the burden of proof. You have supporting you a statement by a group of bishops fifty years ago and then massive apostasies and secularization in the Church since your plan was implemented, and that on a very broad scale, I add. It doesn't speak well to it. It sounds like a mistake, or at least like an option that shouldn't really be taken seriously very longer. You can keep on thinking as you do about how we can make pop or pseudofolk or whatever you call the type of music you want to play at Mass better, but to my mind it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

These are rather weak arguments. First, substantive comparisons between different ages is rather impossible. 99% of the pre-Vatican II Church could have repudiated the faith for all you know. 99% of those folks could be in hell right now. Only God knows the hearts of men and the extent to which the men and women of that age had genuine faith. There could be far more Catholics today who have a genuine faith.

Secondly, the Holy Spirit touches the heart of man and draws him towards God.   Guitar, Gregorian Chant, or Gospel music do nothing apart from God. They are means that the Holy Spirit can make use of as He sees fitting.

Thirdly, correlation does not equate to causation. If that were the case I could also wrongly sit here and make an argument that the use of Gregorian chant caused the East/West split, or that the use of Latin caused the Protestant Reformation.

Quote

If both of these are licit, which is the most reasonable to choose?

If there is only one correct answer to the question of which type of music should be used, why would the magisterium allow different forms of music at all? Either it is good that more modern forms of music should be used, or the current magisterium has erred in allowing their use. So which is it?

The bottom line is this the decision of which music to use has been left to bishops and parish priests to decide. You can have whatever preference you please or believe that whatever form of music you desire is the best, but ultimately it is not your choice to make. People who want to use more modern forms of music are free to do so, you have no authority to tell them that they cannot do so, and you have no authority to tell them that they are wrong. Can you accept that?

By the way, I am guessing that you are a Vatican II rejecting "Rad Trad". Is this assessment wrong? Can a Catholic satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending a NO Mass, or must he attend an EF parish? I am just trying to get a sense of where you are on the so-called "traditionalist" spectrum.

[bardegaulois]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

By the way, I am guessing that you are a Vatican II rejecting "Rad Trad". Is this assessment wrong? Can a Catholic satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending a NO Mass, or must he attend an EF parish? I am just trying to get a sense of where you are on the so-called "traditionalist" spectrum.

If by "Rad Trad," you mean radical traditionalist, then surely you're intelligent enough to understand what an oxymoron that is. Do I attend an EF parish? Yes. It's a diocesan parish, moreover, not some SSPX chapel. To be frank, I've never even met an SSPX priest. Do I dislike the Novus Ordo? It's scarcely my preference, especially as commonly practiced, but it's a valid Mass. Could it benefit from the use of the Latin, chant, eastward orientation, and the like, so as to inculcate a greater sense of the sacred in the faithful? Yes. Had such things been normative to NO from its inception, would we be seeing so many clamouring for the TLM nowadays? Probably not. Is contemporary preaching and pastoral practice a lukewarm failure? Yes.

Is Vatican II the culprit? No. Are any of the official documents of the Council erroneous? No. Is the Council often used wrongly to defend erroneous teachings or practices? Yes. Do I even talk about Vatican II very much? No. Why not? If it changed nothing, but everyone seems to believe it did, then I'm best off just generally avoiding this can of worms and citing the Council of Trent instead, which said the same things for the most part, instead. Would my faith life be any different had V2 never happened? Probably not, but I might be less argumentative about issues like this.

The Church is 2,000 years old, not 50, as so many would seem to believe. As even Pope John considered Vatican II a pastoral council, not called to define new dogma or anything of the like, then it's nowhere near as significant as First Nicaea or Ephesus or Trent. Like the reigns of so many easily forgettable popes, it's just not a significant factor to my faith except as a disingenuous excuse often used by modernists.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

The bottom line is this the decision of which music to use has been left to bishops and parish priests to decide. You can have whatever preference you please or believe that whatever form of music you desire is the best, but ultimately it is not your choice to make. People who want to use more modern forms of music are free to do so, you have no authority to tell them that they cannot do so, and you have no authority to tell them that they are wrong. Can you accept that?

Hey, this is the internet. What's the point of even having an internet if you can't be an ornery SOB on it? I do have the right, though, to say that I will give your parish no money and that I will hear Mass elsewhere if I find their style of worship or homiletics to be lacking in reverence or good taste.

[Peace]

21 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

If by "Rad Trad," you mean radical traditionalist, then surely you're intelligent enough to understand what an oxymoron that is.

 Perhaps it is an oxymoron.

21 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

Do I attend an EF parish? Yes. It's a diocesan parish, moreover, not some SSPX chapel. To be frank, I've never even met an SSPX priest. Do I dislike the Novus Ordo? It's scarcely my preference, especially as commonly practiced, but it's a valid Mass. Could it benefit from the use of the Latin, chant, eastward orientation, and the like, so as to inculcate a greater sense of the sacred in the faithful? Yes. Had such things been normative to NO from its inception, would we be seeing so many clamouring for the TLM nowadays? Probably not. Is contemporary preaching and pastoral practice a lukewarm failure? Yes.

Is Vatican II the culprit? No. Are any of the official documents of the Council erroneous? No. Is the Council often used wrongly to defend erroneous teachings or practices? Yes. Do I even talk about Vatican II very much? No. Why not? If it changed nothing, but everyone seems to believe it did, then I'm best off just generally avoiding this can of worms and citing the Council of Trent instead, which said the same things for the most part, instead. Would my faith life be any different had V2 never happened? Probably not, but I might be less argumentative about issues like this.

 Fair enough. I suppose that I would not consider you a "Rad Trad" based on those responses. I had suspected otherwise based on some of your previous responses such as the "I would not even darken your church door" response and so forth.

21 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

The Church is 2,000 years old, not 50, as so many would seem to believe.

I am not sure who thinks the Church is 50 years old. Perhaps this is your imagination working?

21 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

As even Pope John considered Vatican II a pastoral council, not called to define new dogma or anything of the like, then it's nowhere near as significant as First Nicaea or Ephesus or Trent. Like the reigns of so many easily forgettable popes, it's just not a significant factor to my faith except as a disingenuous excuse often used by modernists.

Well. Whether it is is more or less significant than those earlier councils is of no particular concern of mine. That is up to the Magisterium to decide. I abide by them all to the extent that I can.

You sound somewhat as if you have no need of a living authority. It seems to me that with the development of modern science, biomedical treatments, cloning, artificial intelligence, etc. the living Magisterium will have plenty of things to say that should impact the manner in which we carry out our faith. Do you think that you will be able to resolve these issues by yourself just by referring to the Nicaea or Trent?

Quote

Hey, this is the internet. What's the point of even having an internet if you can't be an ornery SOB on it? I do have the right, though, to say that I will give your parish no money and that I will hear Mass elsewhere if I find their style of worship or homiletics to be lacking in reverence or good taste.

Well, as I said before, you will likely give NO parishes money whether you like it or not, because a certain portion of your contributions is typically sent up to the diocese and then spread among the churches in the diocese, depending on the particular needs of each.

And really. It is not a competition between parishes. It is one body of Christ. What benefits the hand benefits the foot. I don't think that people from one Catholic parish not wanting to help another Catholic parish because they don't like the music is exactly the type of unity that Jesus had in mind . . .

[bardegaulois]

39 minutes ago, Peace said:

 

I am not sure who thinks the Church is 50 years old. Perhaps this is your imagination working?

Well. Whether it is is more or less significant than those earlier councils is of no particular concern of mine. That is up to the Magisterium to decide. I abide by them all to the extent that I can.

You sound somewhat as if you have no need of a living authority. It seems to me that with the development of modern science, biomedical treatments, cloning, artificial intelligence, etc. the living Magisterium will have plenty of things to say that should impact the manner in which we carry out our faith. Do you think that you will be able to resolve these issues by yourself just by referring to the Nicaea or Trent?

First paragraph: I think somehow you misunderstand the meaning of the word "seem." No one would declare such a thing outright, but often their actions can indicate something else to a reasonable observer. Of course, often the actors aren't even fully aware of their mindsets in doing so, and thus one can't justly impugn them. However, a sort of cognitive disconnect can become apparent to many around them; that is, they don't practice what they preach.

Second paragraph: I also believe you misunderstand what the word "magisterium" refers to. The magisterium is not any person or persons; the magisterium is the authority of the Church to establish her teachings, as exercised most bindingly through pope and councils -- the extraordinary magisterium. Thus, the Second Vatican Council excised the extraordinary magisterium. Likewise, so did prior councils and infallible papal statements, and everything within the council's constitutions can be corroborated or at least not contradicted in this prior work, albeit in different language. However, as it was merely restatement of previous extraordinarily magisterial statements (save in a few cases, such as ideas about religious liberty), then we can consider it perhaps edifying, but not truly necessary to take the sort of account of that most Catholic thinkers and writers do.

As for paragraph three, I'll just be frank. After having known so many clergy teaching outright heresy and/or making the Gospel as insipid and inoffensive as possible, I am certainly a little cautious with whom I recognize as authoritative and those to whom I refer the charges I've instructed. Not to be discerning in these situations is not only naive, but spiritually dangerous. There are certain criteria for my recognition -- and these are the criteria established by the extraordinary magisterium, the highest level of authority. Considering that I've been a student of philosophy and theology (among the other arts and sciences) for over 20 years, I'd dare say that my understanding of Catholic doctrine and practice is fairly solid, though, as with all scholars, it's a continually ongoing and evolving process. Needless to say, if the pope or bishops speak about any of these scientific things you mention, can you have a reasonable supposition that their statements will be continuous with past magisterial statements? We generally can. However sometimes they are not clear and might give certain prelates, clergy, and faithful the wrong idea about what they mean, in which case it is important to dispel the confusion and illustrate the continuity better...

In fact, aren't we seeing this demonstrated in the matter of the Dubia right now, as we speak?

[Peace]

7 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

First paragraph: I think somehow you misunderstand the meaning of the word "seem." No one would declare such a thing outright, but often their actions can indicate something else to a reasonable observer. Of course, often the actors aren't even fully aware of their mindsets in doing so, and thus one can't justly impugn them. However, a sort of cognitive disconnect can become apparent to many around them; that is, they don't practice what they preach.

I am not sure who it is that "seems" that the Church has only existed for 50 years either. What type of actions would indicate that?

Quote

Second paragraph: I also believe you misunderstand what the word "magisterium" refers to. The magisterium is not any person or persons; the magisterium is the authority of the Church to establish her teachings, as exercised most bindingly through pope and councils -- the extraordinary magisterium. Thus, the Second Vatican Council excised the extraordinary magisterium. Likewise, so did prior councils and infallible papal statements, and everything within the council's constitutions can be corroborated or at least not contradicted in this prior work, albeit in different language. However, as it was merely restatement of previous extraordinarily magisterial statements (save in a few cases, such as ideas about religious liberty), then we can consider it perhaps edifying, but not truly necessary to take the sort of account of that most Catholic thinkers and writers do.

Well I was using the term as shorthand for the living pope and bishops, who exercise authority. I can write the full phrase out each time if that helps ease your mind.

Quote

As for paragraph three, I'll just be frank. After having known so many clergy teaching outright heresy and/or making the Gospel as insipid and inoffensive as possible, I am certainly a little cautious with whom I recognize as authoritative and those to whom I refer the charges I've instructed. Not to be discerning in these situations is not only naive, but spiritually dangerous. There are certain criteria for my recognition -- and these are the criteria established by the extraordinary magisterium, the highest level of authority. Considering that I've been a student of philosophy and theology (among the other arts and sciences) for over 20 years, I'd dare say that my understanding of Catholic doctrine and practice is fairly solid, though, as with all scholars, it's a continually ongoing and evolving process.

I am not sure where you live but if I saw a priest that I believed was teaching heresy I would report it to my bishop. Have you done that, or is your bishop among those who have preached heresy, in your view of things?

Quote

Needless to say, if the pope or bishops speak about any of these scientific things you mention, can you have a reasonable supposition that their statements will be continuous with past magisterial statements? We generally can. However sometimes they are not clear and might give certain prelates, clergy, and faithful the wrong idea about what they mean, in which case it is important to dispel the confusion and illustrate the continuity better...

Yes, I think so.

Quote

In fact, aren't we seeing this demonstrated in the matter of the Dubia right now, as we speak?

At least insofar as the authors of the Dubia are concerned, yes.

[bardegaulois]

9 hours ago, Peace said:

Well I was using the term as shorthand for the living pope and bishops, who exercise authority. I can write the full phrase out each time if that helps ease your mind.

I am not sure where you live but if I saw a priest that I believed was teaching heresy I would report it to my bishop. Have you done that, or is your bishop among those who have preached heresy, in your view of things?

1. Do they speak in a manner non-contradictory to the body of magisterial statements dating back throughout Church history? That's our guide here. And that, to my mind, is why the Cardinals' Dubia are so important.

2. Some say respect is earned, and this is true in many contexts. But respect can be freely given and lost. I freely offered the clergy of my diocese (including the present and past bishops) my respect, and it seems they did everything in their power to lose it. I told my confessor that this is just making me too angry and stressed and that even dealing with these hard-hearted, close-minded people is provoking me to malice and constituting a near occasion of sin. He told me that I should stay far away in that case, and to travel without the diocese to the TLM solely unless otherwise unavoidable. I took his advice and it has made a world of difference. I dropped my cases under advice here, even though it likely didn't matter as I never received a response to my letters. Not my circus, not my monkeys. I had to let go and focus on how best to serve God otherwise. I look at it as leaving Sodom like Lot, not looking back lest I become a pillar of salt. If they want to deal with me, having lost my trust before, they must earn it again.

[CatherineM]

It must be comforting to be a better Catholic than all the clergy and bishops you've had. 

[bardegaulois]

42 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

It must be comforting to be a better Catholic than all the clergy and bishops you've had. 

If I am (and I can make no judgment on that), then it's only by the grace of God, and it's not comforting; it's very troubling. Also by the grace of God, I've been led into the company of wise and holy priests who see the same issues that I do, who battle them manfully, who engage in the stuggle to avoid being overcome by anguish over the situation of the Church and the world, and whom I see not merely as authorities, but as friends. We're in this together, and I know they have my back and they know I have theirs. That's trust. That's brotherhood. That's what we aim for, eh? Perhaps we can only see it truly when we see everything that it is not.

If you think people can't have foul experiences at the hands of certain clergy, then you delude yourself.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, CatherineM said:

It must be comforting to be a better Catholic than all the clergy and bishops you've had. 

"God, I thank thee that I am not like other men . . ."

[bardegaulois]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

"God, I thank thee that I am not like other men . . ."

Yes, I thank God that the stench of modernism makes me nauseous to the point that I desire even to avoid its trappings. Along with grave malfeasance on the part of the clergy, it has destroyed the faith of most of my family and many in my community, and it has ruined souls. Defend these trappings all you want, but I wonder if you're self-aware enough to understand how closely you sound like one of those priests who secularized my area. Now all you have to do is throw the word "rigid" in there somewhere.

Indeed, what you're doing is the very opposite of evangelism.

[Peace]

11 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

Yes, I thank God that the stench of modernism makes me nauseous to the point that I desire even to avoid its trappings. Along with grave malfeasance on the part of the clergy, it has destroyed the faith of most of my family and many in my community, and it has ruined souls. Defend these trappings all you want, but I wonder if you're self-aware enough to understand how closely you sound like one of those priests who secularized my area. Now all you have to do is throw the word "rigid" in there somewhere.

Indeed, what you're doing is the very opposite of evangelism.

Pray on it. I'll do the same.

[Jack4]

9 hours ago, Peace said:

Pray on it. I'll do the same.

Caught in the act?

[Peace]

56 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

Caught in the act?

No.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

On 2/13/2017 at 2:15 PM, bardegaulois said:

Thank you for saying this. I concur fully with the first statement. Regarding the second, though, you, being a church musician, are in a position to change that. You could focus efforts on teaching both choristers and clergy to read and sing Gregorian chant. But it looks instead like you're more interested in focusing how best to play the historically non-liturgical guitar, as your original question generally indicated. So I'd dare ask you to think long and hard about what your priorities really are.

We've already covered that the liturgical documents allow for the use of other genres, you simply don't agree with the decision that was made. My goal is to help people grow in relationship with God through music within the guidelines the church has laid down. Should the church ever change the allowed genres of music, I will comply. 

Unfortunately I am not a music director but a piano player who volunteers in the Catholic center. At my undergrad university I was in charge of music for adoration, but not mass. Perhaps I will someday have the authority you speak of. If given the opportunity, I would strongly encourage and offer to teach the priests how to sing and would set my music program up to incorporate chant, especially for the psalms (where it REALLY bothers me that English sung pslams paraphrase texts to make them fit the music). What I would not do is insist on exclusively playing chant and polyphony because the document do not call for that. 

Once upon a time people attempted to harmonize the historically non-liturgical organ with the spirit of the liturgy. 

[dells_of_bittersweet]

On 2/12/2017 at 4:52 PM, bardegaulois said:

Consider it sad if you want, but you must consider that your point of view has the burden of proof. You have supporting you a statement by a group of bishops fifty years ago and then massive apostasies and secularization in the Church since your plan was implemented, and that on a very broad scale, I add. It doesn't speak well to it. It sounds like a mistake, or at least like an option that shouldn't really be taken seriously very longer. You can keep on thinking as you do about how we can make pop or pseudofolk or whatever you call the type of music you want to play at Mass better, but to my mind it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Correlation does not imply cause. I think you have an extremely weak argument that bad music caused mass apostasy. I submit that something deeper was wrong if music is the reason someone says they aren't going to church. Furthermore, the following evidence contradicts your thesis:

The church has many growing movements, nearly all of which practice some form of contemporary music. Where I live, the most thriving Catholic community is the Schoenstatt movement, which is a Marian movement from Germany that has come through Latin America to parts of the USA and is theologically conservative but practices lively music. I once played a piano at a mass where a member of the Schoenstatt movement played guitar. 

The Lifeteen youth ministry movement has been phenomenally successful and makes heavy use of contemporary worship music. In the diocese I grew up in, about half our seminarians and recently ordained priests come from the two parishes with Lifeteen. Nationally, 28% of seminarians say that participation in Lifeteen helped their discernment to enter seminary. 

The Awakening retreat program is the largest national retreat program for college students and is common at large campuses such as Purdue, Ohio State, Texas A&M, UT Austin, Vanderbilt, and others. These retreats bring in nearly 100 new students per semester and are the engines driving growing Catholic Campus Ministries at these schools. Likewise, Awakening makes heavy usage of contemporary worship music. At Purdue, after bringing in Awakening, we went from having a static retreat where the same 30 people went on it each semester to getting a new 90 people to come per semester. This growth enabled us to offer two daily masses a day, two hours of confession a day, numerous Bible studies, adoration with praise and worship every Friday night, and numerous other spiritual activities that we had tremendous student involvement in. 

When I have been in growing church communities that had a heavy emphasis and success in evangelization, we used contemporary worship music. I have seen the good fruit and I am fortunate to have been in healthy growing theologically orthodox church communities that did their contemporary music well without making it a rock concert. 

I suspect that you have been in communities that did not do their contemporary music respectfully, were not theologically orthodox, and had a host of problems deeper than the music. 

With regards to associating the music with post-Vatican II apostacy, I submit that the following deeper reasons are the root causes:

1. Cultural secularization removed peer pressure to go to church both the in Catholic Church and in other denominations. Vatican II coincided with this trend. 

2. Vatican II also coincided with the collapse of white-entho-Catholic ghettos with the mass exodus to the suburbs where there was not a culture of Catholicism where people were expected to be in church. 

3. Pre-Vatican II Catholic culture had an unhealthy focus on following the rules and not enough of a focus on why we have the rules and when 1) and 2) above occurred and there was less cultural enforcement of these rules, people fell away. 

4. People hate change and things changed too quickly as a result of bad implementation of Vatican II, as well as flat out disobedience of Vatican II. 

If changing the music was what caused the apostacy, changing the music should bring people back. Pope Benedict XVI appointed many E.F. friendly bishops who made the Latin Mass easily accessible in their diocese. Yet, expanded availability has not led to expanded interest. Monsignor Pope has an article describing the phenomenon of "peak Latin Mass" - that interest has not seemed to have grown past the small group that was already interested in it. It is worth a read: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/msgr-pope/an-urgent-warning-about-the-future-of-the-traditional-latin-mass#ixzz3x2ceLzBc

If going back to Gregorian Chant or the Latin Mass was what was needed, you should be able to give hard numbers (like Lifeteen has) about how many people are getting involved. The previously linked article strikes me as fatal to your position.

[Jack4]

9 hours ago, dells_of_bittersweet said:

3. Pre-Vatican II Catholic culture had an unhealthy focus on following the rules

Source?

[havok579257]

On 2/15/2017 at 0:15 AM, bardegaulois said:

Yes, I thank God that the stench of modernism makes me nauseous to the point that I desire even to avoid its trappings. Along with grave malfeasance on the part of the clergy, it has destroyed the faith of most of my family and many in my community, and it has ruined souls. Defend these trappings all you want, but I wonder if you're self-aware enough to understand how closely you sound like one of those priests who secularized my area. Now all you have to do is throw the word "rigid" in there somewhere.

Indeed, what you're doing is the very opposite of evangelism.

I admit I don't know the fine details about mass music and what's set in stone.  I guess I would question why your against certain types of music if the church allows it?  If I am understanding it right, they allow other forms of music at the mass.  So why be against something the church approves?  I understand not liking all the music but if the church approves something, why go against the church?

[Peace]

6 hours ago, havok579257 said:

I admit I don't know the fine details about mass music and what's set in stone.  I guess I would question why your against certain types of music if the church allows it?  If I am understanding it right, they allow other forms of music at the mass.  So why be against something the church approves?  I understand not liking all the music but if the church approves something, why go against the church?

Because the devil hates Latin.

[Credo in Deum]

10 hours ago, havok579257 said:

I admit I don't know the fine details about mass music and what's set in stone.  I guess I would question why your against certain types of music if the church allows it?  If I am understanding it right, they allow other forms of music at the mass.  So why be against something the church approves?  I understand not liking all the music but if the church approves something, why go against the church?

You're confusing what the Church permits as being what the Church wants! This is a common issues with many is they think permits =/=wants.  The documents of VII say the vernacular is permitted, but they also stress that the Church WANTS Latin to have pride of place in the Liturgy.  This would make sense especially since the same Pope who is responsible for bringing forth the council was also the same Pope who did everything in his authority to ensure the use and preservation of Latin! In fact he did so much if he was to do more the use of Latin would have been dogma!

https://youtu.be/PItj-tf3j1Y

Now how do we know Catholics have taken a mile with the inch the Church provided in VII? Well for one Catholics calling the NO "The Vernacular Mass" should be clear enough proof that Catholics have incorrectly implemented the desires of VII. The same goes with the rest, like the lack of Gregorian Chant, etc. etc. 

The irony is the EF is the only Mass being celebrated according to what VII wanted. 

[Peace]

21 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

The irony is the EF is the only Mass being celebrated according to what VII wanted. 

You might want to seek out a so-called "Reform of the Reform" NO parish. At one parish I go to they do a good part of the liturgy in Latin, the priest faces the altar, altar rail & communion kneeling & on the tongue, your so-called "traditional" chant type music, etc.  If this is what you think VII wanted such parishes do actually exist.

But the question is - would that be good enough for you? Or is your objection to the NO at a more fundamental level?