Yay....the Vernacular

[Cam42]

[quote name='aloha918' date='Apr 12 2005, 08:34 PM'] God help us all!......

are you insane?..........a good guitar cost upwards aroung 6...7 hundred....with a pick up in it....(Obviously you can go higher than that)....a good solid amp....maybe around the same....obviously these are very general prices.......

now lets see how much an organ costs....and this is not being general.....these are actual costs..........

the one in my church......$800,000......o and by the way another $100,000 to install the thing.......which, by the way, is larger than my house.......

ok you are right in sying that the organ doesnt need to be amplified......but i think your arguement is completely messed up......i dont think that you can have really any come back to this at all......but miracles do happen......

we are called to feed the hungrey....give to the poor.......etc.

perhaps the guitar is the more prudent idea......the more selfless idea.....the more loving choice...........and to me that would be sacred!......

when i ask my self the ever corny phrase....."what would Jesus do?"......i think that he would go for the guitar..............and play stairway to heaven...(that was just a joke....please do not reply thinking that i was serious)......

even with the choir situation....it depends how big your choir is.......the one at my church is amplified through the PA....and i go to a pretty big church.....to set this up probablly takes 5 to 10 minutes.....i would know because i help out with it......

and all of this seems a little TRUE to me......

Aloha...... [/quote]
We cannot simply say that this is better because this is cheaper. That is a naive argument. The Church has a need for those things that are beautiful and if an investment is made in, say, an organ, then they will have it for a long time and it will pay for itself....unless of course they don't use it because they are too busy using guitars.

Incidentally, most churches that install organs today get the money from an endowment....not that this matters much. Or they raise the money themselves, but those parishes also ususally have big pockets anyway.

Cam

[aloha918]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 13 2005, 08:10 AM'] We cannot simply say that this is better because this is cheaper.  That is a naive argument.  The Church has a need for those things that are beautiful and if an investment is made in, say, an organ, then they will have it for a long time and it will pay for itself....unless of course they don't use it because they are too busy using guitars.

Incidentally, most churches that install organs today get the money from an endowment....not that this matters much.  Or they raise the money themselves, but those parishes also ususally have big pockets anyway.

Cam [/quote]
yeah ok.......that was an arguement specifically to your statement before.......ya know the one about how guitars need amps and other things...making them not as practical.....blah blah blah.......

i was certainly not stating that we should use guitars for mass becasue they are cheaper.......i was refering to your statement....and that alone.......because i thought that was a naive argument that YOU were making.......

plus i think a big problem with this whole "raising money for an organ thing".....is that most of the people who donate wouldn't donate if it was for a really good cause like......sending money to Africa to help them with supoplies......so obvioulsy i am not a big fan of "raising money for an organ"....because they really dont sound that great......i would much sooner have a piano......anyday.....

i think you were side stepping the argument becasue you knew you were wrong.....

Edited April 13, 2005 by aloha918

[Cam42]

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

Key points....

[quote]b) The difference between sacred, and secular music must be taken into consideration. Some musical instruments, such as the classic organ, are naturally appropriate for sacred music; others, such as string instruments which are played with a bow, are easily adapted to liturgical use. [b]But there are some instruments which, by common estimation, are so associated with secular music that they are not at all adaptable for sacred use. (DMS no. 60b)[/b][/quote]

I think that this starts to speak to your issue, as well, scardella.

[quote]The principal musical instrument for solemn liturgical ceremonies of the Latin Church has been and remains the classic pipe organ. (DMS no. 61)[/quote]

[quote]An organ destined for liturgical use, even if small, should be designed according to the norms of organ building, and be equipped with the type of pipes suitable for sacred use. Before it is to be used it should be properly blessed, and as a sacred object, receive proper care. (DMS no. 62)[/quote]

That speaks to the organ in the circus maximus argument.

[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]

As I have also said all along, organs are not the only instruments that can be used, but it does say DMS does say that other instruments can be used. Notice that it is bowed instruments that are mentioned, not all stringed instruments.

[quote]Musical instruments which by common acception, and use are suitable only for secular music must be entirely excluded from all liturgical functions, and private devotions. (DMS no. 70)[/quote]

Amazing....but the Church is very clear. And this is why:
[quote]As everyone realizes, sacred music and sacred liturgy are so naturally inter- woven that laws cannot be made for the one without affecting the other. Indeed in the papal documents, and the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites we find materials common to both sacred music, and sacred liturgy. (Introduction, DMS)[/quote]

That is the why of it scardella.

Cam

[Cam42]

[quote]plus i think a big problem with this whole "raising money for an organ thing".....is that most of the people who donate wouldn't donate if it was for a really good cause like......sending money to Africa to help them with supoplies......so obvioulsy i am not a big fan of "raising money for an organ"....because they really dont sound that great......i would much sooner have a piano......anyday.....

i think you were side stepping the argument becasue you knew you were wrong.....[/quote]

Thankfully the Church doesn't agree with you. And incidentally, I am not sidestepping anything you are saying. I am sidestepping hot stuff, but that is on purpose. He and I have been arguing this for years and years. I know where he is going and he knows where I am going. We want to include others in our discussion. Notice who started the conversation. We are looking for other input.

The idea of foregoing our own heritage for that of another isn't necessarily a sound argument. So, the I wanna give all my money to Africa argument will not stand up. Cardinal Arinze is not in favor of your opinion, and neither am I. We have our own patrimony and we should foster that. Yes, give relief where we can, but we also need to support our own. Proper dignity given to the Liturgy cannot suffer simply because I feel and urge to give to Africa.

And thanks for your opinion on the organ. The Church doesn't agree.

Oh, I still have not given my opinion. Everything that I have stated is backed by a document from the Church. So, if I am wrong, the Church is wrong. Are you ready to go there?

Cam

[aloha918]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 13 2005, 08:36 AM']
Thankfully the Church doesn't agree with you. And incidentally, I am not sidestepping anything you are saying. I am sidestepping hot stuff, but that is on purpose. He and I have been arguing this for years and years. I know where he is going and he knows where I am going. We want to include others in our discussion. Notice who started the conversation. We are looking for other input.

The idea of foregoing our own heritage for that of another isn't necessarily a sound argument. So, the I wanna give all my money to Africa argument will not stand up. Cardinal Arinze is not in favor of your opinion, and neither am I. We have our own patrimony and we should foster that. Yes, give relief where we can, but we also need to support our own. Proper dignity given to the Liturgy cannot suffer simply because I feel and urge to give to Africa.

And thanks for your opinion on the organ. The Church doesn't agree.

Oh, I still have not given my opinion. Everything that I have stated is backed by a document from the Church. So, if I am wrong, the Church is wrong. Are you ready to go there?

Cam [/quote]
i am not saying that it is a problem for the church to raise money for an organ....what i was saying is that i think it is sad that some people will give money to an organ and not to a worthy cause......that was really all i was saying......

the money to Africa thing i dont even know if i would agree with that....actually i dont think that i would....it was just something i threw in there.....anywho

this quote that you stated was what i have been refering to in my last 3 posts.........i thought that THIS statement....and no others that you have made......was ridiculous....THIS statdment is what i thought you were side sptepping........

"Hmmmm.....do you need to amplify an organ by artificial means? And in most parish churches do you need to amplify the choir's voice? However, even in the smallest of parish churches do you need to amplify the guitar? Unless you are in the Florence Chapel at UST, I would say thatmost of the time you do.

As a matter of fact, I have sung many, many times at the 4th largest Cathedral in the US and we have never had to use amplification of either the organ or the choir. However, the guitar needs to be amplified.....seems a little false to me."

and you have been side stepping becasue you havent mentioned it since you posted it.........

[Nicole8223]

[quote]Musical instruments which by common acception, and use are suitable only for secular music must be entirely excluded from all liturgical functions, and private devotions. (DMS no. 70) [/quote]


But they make no distinction. As I read this, I take this to mean drums, eectric guitars, bass...but not an acoustic guitar. As a matter of fact, in the secular world, I saw very few acoustic guitars, but almost all electric guitars. I relate the acoustic guitar to religious music. that is the only place I have seen it, besides maybe some old coutny song.s Sure, you can find them if you look for them in the seculr world, but I wouldn't say by any means that they are only used for secular music.

There is no specific distinction. There is no mention of the guitar, or of any other insturments...much of this IS left to the interpretation of the reader. Cam, you and I have read the same thing and taken it totally differently. How can we say I am right and you are wrong...perhaps we just disagree and leave it at that.

On another note, thank you for clearing up for me the reason why the organ is the appropriate instrument for the cathedral. it makes more sense now...I was scared I was switching to the dark side...LOL. Just kidding!

[Jaime]

Florence Chapel??

How many Tommies are on this site anyway? You guys should have seen the Florence chapel back in the 80s. It was like playing mass in a rumpus room. They used to have music for all the daily masses.

Don't get Camster wrong, just because he's sidestepping my argument to get more folks in the debate (or is it out of fear ) we like to butt heads pretty hard over this issue.

And Cam's correct on the endowments. You'd be surprised how many people are organ donors.

Organ donors... Get it?


(crickets chirping)

[Nicole8223]

oh man...this has gone down hill....LOL

hot stuff, you crack me up!

[Cam42]

[quote]As a matter of fact, in the secular world, I saw very few acoustic guitars, but almost all electric guitars. I relate the acoustic guitar to religious music. that is the only place I have seen it, besides maybe some old coutny song.s Sure, you can find them if you look for them in the seculr world, but I wouldn't say by any means that they are only used for secular music.[/quote]

Bob Dylan
CNSY
James Taylor

Cat Stevens
Don McLean

Poison
Jackson Browne
Dion

John Mayer
Uncle Kracker
Josh Kelly
Kid Rock

So, we can go back 40 years or we can get to yesterday. The acoustic guitar is more represented with secular music.

Several months ago, I did a non-scientific poll at my local Starbucks. But I think that it speaks to your point:

I asked 10 people, “When I say ‘guitar,’ what do you think? The answers, in no particular order.....2 Jimi Hendrix, 1 Metallica, 2 John Denver, 3 Rock ‘n Roll, 1 acoustic, 1 electric. I then asked the same 10 people, “When I say ‘organ,’ what do you think? The answers in no particular order....8 church, 1 baseball park, 1 heart. (I think he was stoned, he also was one of the Jimi Hendrix answers.)

Things that make you go Hmmmm.......

Cam

[aloha918]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 13 2005, 09:20 AM']
Organ donors... Get it?


(crickets chirping) [/quote]
lame....but i love it......

[Nicole8223]

Ok, Cam, I do se your oint here. And to behonest, I'm only 22, and I am not well-versred in scripture or Church Teaching (yet ), but I was hoping someone who is could come and post things in response to you. I do believe in my heart that guitar IS appropriate in Mass, at certain times and places, but I have nothing to support me, and you have a lot to support you.

What does all this mean? I don't know....It means I have some more thinking to do, I guess!

If anyone can go at this better than me, go for it!

Cam's too good for me...!!!

[aloha918]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 13 2005, 09:33 AM']
Bob Dylan
CNSY
James Taylor

Cat Stevens
Don McLean

Poison
Jackson Browne
Dion

John Mayer
Uncle Kracker
Josh Kelly
Kid Rock

So, we can go back 40 years or we can get to yesterday. The acoustic guitar is more represented with secular music.

Several months ago, I did a non-scientific poll at my local Starbucks. But I think that it speaks to your point:

I asked 10 people, “When I say ‘guitar,’ what do you think? The answers, in no particular order.....2 Jimi Hendrix, 1 Metallica, 2 John Denver, 3 Rock ‘n Roll, 1 acoustic, 1 electric. I then asked the same 10 people, “When I say ‘organ,’ what do you think? The answers in no particular order....8 church, 1 baseball park, 1 heart. (I think he was stoned, he also was one of the Jimi Hendrix answers.)

Things that make you go Hmmmm.......

Cam [/quote]
i would say that the acoustic guitar is in the secualr world......but not nearly as much as the electric......

the guitar is a secualr instrument.......but i seen secular bands use organs.....

does this mean that anytime a secular band uses an instrument it then becomes "not sacred"?.......

[Jaime]

Nicole don't you go anywhere girl!! I won't let Camster bully you ( I say that lightly). Yes Cam is very knowledgeable but don't sell yourself short. Cam and I have just scratched the surface of this thing. Like he said, he and I have been arguing this one for years. I still have a few tricks up my sleeve.

We guitarists need to stick together. Stick around and we'll have some fun!

And if comes down to it. I'll hold him down and you can tickle him until he submits!!

[Cam42]

[quote]does this mean that anytime a secular band uses an instrument it then becomes "not sacred"?....... [/quote]

No, but if you read DMS, specifically, no. 60 (b).

[quote]The difference between sacred, and secular music must be taken into consideration. Some musical instruments, such as the classic organ, are naturally appropriate for sacred music; others, such as string instruments which are played with a bow, are easily adapted to liturgical use. But there are some instruments which, by common estimation, are so associated with secular music that they are not at all adaptable for sacred use.[/quote]

The guitar falls in that category. How? I just gave 12 examples....I can give more. Incidentally, I find it interesting that during the 60s and 70s Dion and Cat Stevens were sung at Mass.....disturbing isn't it? And how is it that it is ok to play Faith Hill and Josh Groban during wedding Masses?

Did someone say something about the common invading the sacred????

Cam

[Jaime]

[quote]The guitar falls in that category. How? I just gave 12 examples....I can give more. Incidentally, I find it interesting that during the 60s and 70s Dion and Cat Stevens were sung at Mass.....disturbing isn't it? And how is it that it is ok to play Faith Hill and Josh Groban during wedding Masses?[/quote]

Do not jump topics Camster. (And btw it is perfectly acceptable to play secular music at the prelude, postlude, unity candle and post eucharistic meditation.)

We are not talking about secular music. We are talking about guitars playing liturgical music.

[Cam42]

I'm not jumping Himester....I don't agree with the use of secular music in the Liturgy....period.

Prelude/Postlude are fine....that is not Liturgical, it is para-liturgical.

Notice that everything that I have said thus far includes reference to the guitar not being acceptable and/or support of said position.

Cam

[Jaime]

The unity candle and the post eucharistic meditation are not part of either the liturgy of the Word or the liturgy of the Eucharist.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it violates the rubrics of the Mass. Secular music at the unity candle does not make the mass illicit or invalid.

And the topic is guitars, not secular music in the Mass. You and I see pretty much eye to eye on that one

[Cam42]

I know we see eye to eye on secular music.....you and both love the same kinda music...always have. That is finished.

However, I still stand by DMS no. 60 (b). And when I listed the secular singers, I was offering support to the secluarism and humanism of the guitar. It is, by common estimation, are so associated with secular music that they are not at all adaptable for sacred use.

That is my point. The Church is clear. I have given examples to that.

Cam

[Nicole8223]

[quote]That is my point. The Church is clear. I have given examples to that.[/quote]

I don't have any clarity. I don't think the church is clear. I mean, I haven't seen once anything that says, "Do not use an acoustic guitar in Mass." I have seen statements that could conform to that idea if you wish to perceive them that way, but I have not seen any clear statements.

[Cam42]

[quote]"Do not use an acoustic guitar in Mass."[/quote]

[quote]But there are some instruments which, by common estimation, are so associated with secular music that they are not at all adaptable for sacred use. (DMS no. 60 (b))[/quote]

The guitar falls into this category. While not explicitly stated....evidence presented leads to that conclusion. Then again, many of the teachings of the Church are implicit and not explicit.

As I said earlier, the impotice isn't on me to prove that the guitar is or is not acceptable. I have shown what is to be seen as acceptable, in the Church's eyes....that much is clear.

Let me lay it out this way:

1. Gregorian Chant
2. Organ
3. Other bowed instrumentation

I don't see anything saying anything about guitars, but I see it saying a whole lot about the things I have been talking about. So, show me how the guitar can be subsituted licitly and I will change my tune.

And why is it that we don't promote Gregorian Chant again? Isn't that explicit? It is.

Cam