Yay....the Vernacular

[Jaime]

Gee Cam Its like Deja Vu all over again

Baiting me right before the fishing season opens.... really!

[Cam42]

Name one current composer who can hold water to Mozart, Gounod, and Bach. I can’t, not even close. Is the Creation Mass mundane compared to the Coronation Mass of Mozart? Uh, yes. Is the Creation Mass mundane compared to any mode of Gregorian Chant? Uh yes. Is that a matter of opinion? Uh no, the Church says as much. What has pride of place. Read Pope St. Pius X, [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/17/DocumentIndex/360"]Tra Le Sollecitudini[/url] It is fairly clear on the state of music and where it should go.

[quote]“Classic Polyphony agrees admirably with Gregorian Chant, the supreme model of all sacred music, and hence it has been found worthy of a place side by side with Gregorian Chant, in the more solemn functions of the Church, such as those of the Pontifical Chapel.” (TS no.4)[/quote]

[quote]“ Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears less suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship is the theatrical style, which was in the greatest vogue, especially in Italy, during the last century. This of its very nature is diametrically opposed to Gregorian Chant and classic polyphony, and therefore to the most important law of all good sacred music. Besides the intrinsic structure, the rhythm and what is known as the conventionalism of this style adapt themselves but badly to the requirements of true liturgical music.” (TS no.6) [/quote]

Amazing how much of the musical functionality of the Church today follows in direct opposition to that condemnation.

How about [url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM"]Mediator Dei[/url].

Hey, how about [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/17/DocumentIndex/243"]De Musica Sacra[/url].

It actually speaks about liturgical instrumentation.
[quote]“Other instruments besides the organ, especially the smaller bowed instruments, may be used during the liturgical functions, particularly on days of greater solemnity. These may be used together with the organ or without it, for instrumental numbers of for accompanying the singing. However, the following rules derived from the principles stated above (no.60) are to strictly observed:

a) the instruments are truly suitable for sacred use;

b) they are to be played with such seriousness, and religious devotion that every suggestion of raucous secular music is avoided, and the devotion of the faithful is fostered;

c) the director, organist, and other instrumentalists should be well trained in instrumental techniques, and the laws of sacred music.” (DMS no.68) [/quote]

Did someone say something about a chamber orchestra?

How abouts [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/documentText/Index/2/SubIndex/17/ContentIndex/386/Start/385"]Musica Sacra Disciplina[/url]?

[quote]Since the Church always held this polyphonic chant in the highest esteem, it willingly admitted this type of music even in the Roman basilicas and in pontifical ceremonies in order to increase the glory of the sacred rites. Its power and splendor were increased when the sounds of the organ and other musical instruments were joined with the voices of the singers.” (MSD no.15)[/quote]

[quote]“On this score sacred music obeys laws and rules which are no different from those prescribed for all religious art and, indeed, for art in general. Now we are aware of the fact that during recent years some artists, gravely offending against Christian piety, have dared to bring into churches works devoid of any religious inspiration and completely at variance with the right rules of art. They try to justify this deplorable conduct by plausible-looking arguments which they claim are based on the nature and character of art itself. They go on to say that artistic inspiration is free and that it is wrong to impose upon it laws and standards extraneous to art, whether they are religious or moral, since such rules seriously hurt the dignity of art and place bonds and shackles on the activity of an inspired artist.” (MSD no.22) [/quote]

[quote]“Since the freedom of the artist is not a blind instinct to act in accordance with his own whim or some desire for novelty, it is in no way restricted or destroyed, but actually ennobled and perfected, when it is made subject to the divine law.” (MSD no.26)[/quote]

The musician must subjegate himself to the divine law when composing or praying the music of the Mass.

The use of the organ does not need to be theologically proven, by the way. The Church is a Church of tradition as well. I have given many examples of the organ; pipe or otherwise as being the preferred instrument through sacred tradition. How can I say sacred? Through all of the enycylicals, exhortations and conciliar documentation.

The only other instruments mentioned are bowed instruments. Last I checked, the guitar is not a bowed instrument (unless of course you are a drugged out wack-o named Jimmy Paige).

As far as culture goes, read the encyclicals. The Catholic culture still supercedes. Just as in the proper use of language, the proper use of music is to be followed. To do otherwise is to stand in direct opposition to both Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII.

I still assert that guitars are instruments of secular music and not worthy of sacred music, based on the articles and comments by the authortitative figures named. Especially, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Pius XII, and Pope Paul VI, as well Susan Benofey, Lucy Carroll and the USCCB.

Cam

[Q the Ninja]

You know, come visit St. Peter's sometime for a high Mass and hear the music. Wow...

Wow.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='Apr 8 2005, 02:01 PM'] You know, come visit St. Peter's sometime for a high Mass and hear the music. Wow...

Wow. [/quote]
I was part of the only American choir to sing the Midnight Mass at St. Peter's. Been there....

[Nicole8223]

I play guitar, and have played at Mass before. However, I have never played anything that is inappropriate in the Church. The music is not loud and clapping music...just soft and a nice change from our elderly organist who plays the same songs every week. I think it can be a very nice addition if used in the proper light.

I don't like the full band, electric guitars, drums, any of that stuff...doesn't work to me. Ruins the reverence and the mood of the liturgy.

[Cam42]

[quote]I think it can be a very nice addition if used in the proper light.[/quote]

What is the proper light? How can an instrument that is not intended for sacred music be proper? Here is some more from the above documentation.

Don't get me wrong, I like guitar as much as the next guy, hot stuff is one of the most gifted guitarists that I know. That however, doesn't change my mind on the appropriateness or lack thereof for the Liturgy.


[quote]....."On this subject St. Augustine has accurately written: “Music, that is the science or the sense of proper modulation, is likewise given by God’s generosity to mortals having rational souls in order to lead them to higher things.” (MSD no.5)[/quote]

[quote]“St. Paul showed us clearly that sacred chant was used and held in honor from the very beginning in the Church founded by the Divine Redeemer when he wrote to the Ephesians: “Be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs."[7] He indicates that this custom of singing hymns was in force in the assemblies of Christians when he says: “When you come together each of you has a hymn."” (MSD no.8)[/quote]

[quote]“The choral chant began to be called “Gregorian” after St. Gregory, the man who revived it. It attained new beauty in almost all parts of Christian Europe after the 8th or 9th century because of its accompaniment by a new musical instrument called the “organ.” Little by little, beginning in the 9th century, polyphonic singing was added to this choral chant. The study and use of polyphonic singing were developed more and more during the centuries that followed and were raised to a marvelous perfection under the guidance of magnificent composers during the 15th and 16th centuries.” (DSM no.14)[/quote]

[quote]“In the ordinary lessons of Liturgy, Morals, and Canon Law given to the students of theology, let care be taken to touch on those points which regard more directly the principles and laws of sacred music, and let an attempt be made to complete the doctrine with some particular instruction in the aesthetic side of sacred art, so that the clerics may not leave the seminary ignorant of all those subjects so necessary to a full ecclesiastical education.” (TS no.26)[/quote]

The thought that there is a subjective understanding of music is a flawed one. There is no action of the sacred Liturgy that is subjective. There is no action of the sacred Liturgy that is at the discretion of the minister. This has been made clear time and time again. This also applies to the musician. The formula’s that are to be adhered to are often not. They are passed over for innovation and subjectivism. What do I mean by this? When there is an organ in the church, it sits silent as a guitar is played. Traditional hymns such as the Salve Regina, Sing of Mary, Schubert’s Ave Maria are passed over in favor of a guitar group or a piano/synthesizer.

Referring back to Ms. Carroll, when is this proper? The congregation should rightly sing a capella if the organ is not possible. She asks a question that has been glossed over, so I will ask it. “So why do we have electric keyboards, jazz and rock groups and an abundance of guitars instead of the pipe organ or a good pipe organ facsimile?”

My answer...."music ministry” has become more important than the participatio actuosa of the faithful. “Music ministry” would rather hold court in the front of the church than allow for the congregation to sing.

What can an organ do that a guitar can’t? Ms. Carroll rightly asserts, “The pipe organ is not only powerful and authoritative because of its depth and volume, but because it mimics the human voice, a fact alluded to by Pope Saint Pius X. That is, air is pumped through pipes (organ pipe/human windpipe) via a wind chest (lungs and diaphragm) and follows a nice straight path out the round opening (pipe opening/human mouth). This means that, like a singer, a pipe organ can actually breathe.”

“A well-trained organist will lift his or her hands at the end of each phrase, resulting in an obvious silence and a clear indication to the congregation that they can all breathe together at that spot. Strummed guitars, drums, and other percussive instruments cannot do that. And again, the organ can provide several lines of music simultaneously: melody, harmony, descant, etc. While playing, an organist is a whirl of hand and foot activity.”

There are several reasons that organs are more appropriate than guitars.

Cam

[Nicole8223]

However, it is not a Church requirement that the organ be used and not the guitar. I, for one, am led more into worship by a gifted guitarist who plays appropriate music (this is what I meant by in a proper light) than by an organ. I think it is nice to have a minor change, without changing the music itself, or the liturgy in any sense.

I can definitely agree with you about "music ministry." It tends to be a very easy way to let pride come in, as I have experienced, and to let the Mass become a show. I prefer simplicity.

I respect your opinion very much, and I will definitely consider your points more. This is just my response for now, without having truly reflected on the matter ( I am at work..)

Just out of curiosity...there is nothing that states a guitar cannot be used, right? I would never want to go against church teaching.

[Jaime]

grrrrrr...

[God Conquers]

I'm not sure how your insistance on Bach, Mozart, and choir etc. jives with the "active participation of the faithful".

It s much harder to follow Mozart than a contemporary song.

I'm talking like the difference between driving a scooter and driving a fighter jet.

(scooters are beaver dam hard.....)

[Cam42]

[quote]Just out of curiosity...there is nothing that states a guitar cannot be used, right?[/quote]

Well.....[quote]"In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind 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, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.” (SC 120)[/quote]

[url="http://www.adoremus.org/SacrosanctumConcilium.html"]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/url]

[i]This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.[/i]

I can show in several ways that the guitar is not suitable. It is a profane instrument. Here is an interesting definiton from [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=profane"]dictionary.com[/url] dealing with profane.

[quote]pro·fane    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (pr-fn, pr-)
adj.
1.  Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2.  [b][u]Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.[/u][/b]
3.  Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4.  Vulgar; coarse.[/quote]

Article 40 deals specifically with development of the Liturgy. In the United States and the world, I daresay, there are few places left that would qualify......mission lands. Perhaps parts of Africa and MAYBE parts of the Middle East (although I doubt it).

I would assert that use of (I will assume Gregorian, for brevity’s sake) chant and organ are the normative actions of the music of the Liturgy. The Code of Canon Law says of Liturgical law, of which we speak;

[quote]“For the most part the Code does not determine the rites to be observed in the celebration of liturgical actions. Accordingly, liturgical laws which have been in effect hitherto retain their force, except those which may be contrary to the canons of the Code.” (CIC 2)[/quote]

[url="http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/"]Code of Canon Law (CIC) 1983[/url]

I would think that according to this, the normative actions (ie. chant and organ) should retain their force.

Duane L.C.M. Galles states,
[quote]“The rampant disregard for liturgical law by trendy clerics and liturgists probably has been the greatest source of harm in the Latin church in the past three decades. Great irreverence has been perpetrated in the name of “relevance” in the liturgy and, as one author stated, the solemn worship of God too often has been transformed into a low-grade variety act. Too often the celebrant sees his role as something of a stand-up comic who must bend or break the liturgical rules to get his “theme” across. He acts not in the person of Jesus Christ but of Johnny Carson.

Bishops tolerate this and Rome tolerates episcopal toleration. It is after all “only” the liturgy— what Vatican II called the <fons el culmen>, the source and summit of Christian life.”[/quote]

Liturgical laws are not arbitrary constructions but are intended to protect important truths and realities of the faith according to the principle lex orandi lex credendi (the law of praying is the law of believing). For this reason the authority in the Church which has the charism of protecting the faith is uniquely responsible for safeguarding the integrity of the Mass and other sacraments. This includes music and the proper implementation of it.

Cam

[Jaime]

grrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 8 2005, 03:52 PM'] grrrrrrrrrrrrr [/quote]
:crackup:

[God Conquers]

What about my earlier post?

Also... the only thing I do with my guitar is give glory to God. I don't play secular music, I pretty much only ever play worship (it's all I know.... hey, I liike it)

How then could my guitar be considered secular or nonreligious?

[argent_paladin]

Firstly, a guitar is not out of favor because it is a 20th century instrument. It is far older and there is a large body of classical guitar compositions. The electronically augmented guitar is modern and that is why it wasn' t really an issue before. There are many technical reasons why an organ is prefered but the biggest reasons for me are ideological.

The organ is a better metaphor for the church because it is permanent and traditional. A pipe organ is not a portable instrument and is literally built into the church. Unlike a guitar that you can sling on your back, an organ lends a sense of permanence and eternalness that a guitar doesn't do. That is a great antidote for the rush-rush, everything new is better, culture that we live in.
Second, the organ is the traditional instrument and shows the importance of tradition in the Church. There are thousands of quality works for the organ. Plus, a single organist can accompany the entire liturgy in a variety of ways, loud or quite, solo or accompany, etc. The guitar is much more limited and sounds best when combined with other instruments or with voice.

One of the biggest problems in liturgical music today is the rate of change. GIA and Oregon Press make money on turnover. Liturgists subscribe to yearly music issues. There is no sense of permanence. Music just comes and goes. And if liturgy is constantly changing, then why not other aspects of the church? I am not advocating no innovation, but we have gone to the extreme. Why only play the latest music? Try the tried and true so that people can actually learn the songs and sing them?

[Cam42]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Apr 8 2005, 09:17 PM']What about my earlier post?

Also... the only thing I do with my guitar is give glory to God. I don't play secular music, I pretty much only ever play worship (it's all I know.... hey, I liike it)

How then could my guitar be considered secular or nonreligious?[/quote]
Ok, then I would ask you a couple of questions regarding the guitar v. stringed instrumentation. 1) What stringed instruments are they talking about? 2) Are they talking about guitar or are they talking about orchestral instrumentation, such as violin, viola, cello, and bass? 3) As far as percussion are they talking about a trap set or are they talking about orchestral percussion, such as tympani (Which by the way is not really percussion, because it is tunable)?

I would assert, based upon the patrimony of the Church and the history of her Liturgies (ie. Masses of the Vianese style, Faure, Bruckner, etc....) that they are talking about the orchestra and not a 12 string and trap set.

How can I make this assertion? They put it together with wind instruments and organ.

Ms. Carroll asserts,
[quote]But if a mariachi band sounds exactly as it does at a fiesta where the guests are swigging margaritas, or a rock band sounds as it does at a local teen dance, then they are not suitable for Mass. Whether they can be made suitable or sacred in nature as the Church requires is highly questionable.[/quote] I agree.

She also says,
[quote]Music that is entertaining is, by its nature and style, appealing and popular; but it is not sacred music. Mariachi bands, kazoo groups, rock bands, and the like are definitely not “suited to the grandeur of the act being celebrated.[/quote]

James Hitchcock rightly asserts,
[quote]Worshippers can now hear in church words not greatly different in tone from those television commentators use. The music is similar to what is played at pop concerts. Archaic symbols have been all but eliminated from the ritual. Everything is quite consciously “modern”, and new techniques are tried out with regularity. There is now a generation of people who have to a great extent given up their traditions and willingly adopted a mobile style of life in which everything is newly minted, progress is taken for granted, and the past is something boring and unpleasant.[/quote]

Hitchcock says,
[quote]The new liturgy has also gained popularity in those places supposed to be the bastions of a sterile conservatism ­ the suburbs. That this should be the case is not surprising, because unintentionally the new liturgy seems designed to fit the new middle-class culture. It eschews formality, solemnity, and complexity in favor of a casual and utilitarian style.[/quote]

I would assert this; by eschewing formality, solemnity and complexity, we expect the simplistic to be used. By it’s very nature a guitar is simple. It cannot generate the complexity that any organ, pipe, reed, or otherwise can. By moving to this simplistic stylization, we are abandoning the heritage that is the Catholic tradition in favor of a “sterilized” and simplistic Liturgy.

Cam