Concerning Instruments At Mass...

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='cappie' post='1075288' date='Sep 26 2006, 12:36 AM']
Music in antiquity was always an improvisatory affair. The music theory of the time was radically different from Gregorian Chant (that system originated around the 8th-9th centuries): melodies were made of groupings of short melodic figures and strung together like stringing a necklace. There was no written music until the first lineless neumes appeared. Written organ music appeared first in the 14th century.

The ancient church had a prohibition of instrumental music, which remains in force in the Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic churches today. The organ was probably first used during processions (with the Emperor). When it began to be used at liturgy, it was used before, after and perhaps at times such as the Elevation. The organ's role in the performance of organum and early polyphony may have been to provide drones or the chant melody in slow note values, however, there is nothing in the manuscripts that call for any line to be performed instrumentally.

The organ wasn't used to accompany congregational singing, partly because by the time the organ was common congregational singing had died in the Western church; the monks did all the singing. As the organ became an integral part of the liturgy, it took on a role of alternation (beginning with the first recorded keyboard music in 1325) with the choir: the schola would sing one verse of a hymn, or mass movement and the organ would play a short piece (frequently improvised) that took the place of the alternate verses. This became one of the main liturgical use of the organ in Catholic circles, in all countries, until Vatican II. The improvisation that accompanied the Low Mass was a post-Tridentine development. Catholic choirs generally sang unaccompanyied until the Baroque era, and then organ accompanyiment was sporadic, particularly when the a cappella tradition developed in Palestrina was the model in many places (which meant no accompaniment)..

The organ came to be used in Protestant circles only in Lutheran and Anglican traditions. Calvinist (Reformed) traditions forbade instrumental music until 1795. Solo organ music was written on various hymn melodies almost as the hymns were written and used as introductions to the hymns themselves as well as pieces in their own right. One theory is the chorales in Bach's collection the _Orgelbuchlein_, may have taken the place of congregational singing in the ducal chapel he played at the time of their composition (from Robert Clark's introduction to his _Orgelbuchlein_ edition). We're not sure when the organ became primary accompanyiment for congregational singing, but it was probably the 18th century (the chorales may have been sung unaccompanied in Bach's day). Organs accompanied choirs (continuo style, much like reading a lead sheet today, except from the bottom up) from the beginning of the Reformation (which wasn't to far from the beginning of the Baroque--a hundred years), although the a cappella tradition was still important even in Germany (they even did Palestrina in Lutheran churches!).

The pattern we know of where the organ provides the support for congregational singing probably comes from no earlier than the 17th century, and then only in German and English liturgical Protestant traditions. Accompanying Catholic congregations from the organ wasn't common until the 20th century, when the congregations started singing again.

NB The quote about the piano, unless I am mistaken, was taken from the Instruction of Pope St Pius X this is no longer in force
[/quote]
Wow! That's really interesting stuff, Cappie. Thanks! Did you type that all out for us or did you find it elsewhere? If you found it, will you link us?

And about the possible instruction of Pope St Pius X, can someone confirm that?

[cappie]

Part of an article I saved doing work on Church music about 2003. I don't have a link.

[franciscanheart]

Ah. Well it was very interesting! Thanks for sharing!

[Aloysius]

I believe Cam's quote is a principal source for the Vatican II document on sacred music... and as such he proposes (and I agree) that that conciliar document ought to be understood in the light of its source document from tradition... because unless it specifically contradicts its source document it clearly intends to draw upon that document as if the whole thing were of merit.

[franciscanheart]

So what do the Vatican II documents say? (Note: I understand what you are saying but I also would want to know what the new documents, the documents sourcing these other documents, stated. How are there so many churches out of line if there are clearly defined documents?)

[cappie]

The following is the current discipline, in general form [open to specific local adaptations], from the Vatican's "Musicam sacram" ("Sacred Music") of 1967.


VI. Sacred Instrumental Music

62. Musical instruments can be very useful in sacred celebrations, whether they accompany the singing or whether they are played as solo instruments.

"The pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, since it is its traditional instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lift up men's minds to God and higher things.

"The use of other instruments may also be admitted in divine worship, given the decision and consent of the competent territorial authority, provided that the instruments are suitable for sacred use, or can be adapted to it, that they are in keeping with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful." [quoted from Vatican II]

63. In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.

Any musical instrument permitted in divine worship should be used in such a way that it meets the needs of the liturgical celebration, and is in the interests both of the beauty of worship and the edification of the faithful.

64. The use of musical instruments to accompany the singing can act as a support to the voices, render participation easier, and achieve a deeper union in the assembly. However, their sound should not so overwhelm the voices that it is difficult to make out the text; and when some part is proclaimed aloud by the priest or a minister by virtue of his role, they should be silent.

65. In sung or said Masses, the organ, or other instrument legitimately admitted, can be used to accompany the singing of the choir and the people; it can also be played solo at the beginning before the priest reaches the altar, at the Offertory, at the Communion, and at the end of Mass. The same rule, with the necessary adaptations, can be applied to other sacred celebrations.

66. The playing of these same instruments as solos is not permitted in Advent, Lent, during the Sacred Triduum and in the Offices and Masses of the Dead.

67. It is highly desirable that organists and other musicians should not only possess the skill to play properly the instrument entrusted to them: they should also enter into and be thoroughly aware of the spirit of the liturgy, so that even when playing ex tempore, they will enrich the sacred celebration according to the true nature of each of its parts, and encourage the participation of the faithful.

Also Pope John Paul has a letter on the centenery of the MOTO PROPRIO of Pope Pius X 2003

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2003/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20031203_musica-sacra_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_pau...a-sacra_en.html[/url]


From the document:

14. Again at the practical level, the Motu Proprio whose centenary it is also deals with the question of the musical instruments to be used in the Latin Liturgy. Among these, it recognizes without hesitation the prevalence of the pipe organ and establishes appropriate norms for its use[42]. The Second Vatican Council fully accepted my holy Predecessor's approach, decreeing: "The pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, for it is the traditional musical instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendour to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up people's minds to God and to higher things"[43].

Nonetheless, it should be noted that contemporary compositions often use a diversity of musical forms that have a certain dignity of their own. To the extent that they are helpful to the prayer of the Church they can prove a precious enrichment. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that instruments are suitable for sacred use, that they are fitting for the dignity of the Church and can accompany the singing of the faithful and serve to edify them.

[Aloysius]

Cam would be better to answer here... I'm just repeating an argument I think I remember him putting forth once.

I believe it basically goes like this: Vatican II drew directly from Pius X's motu proprio, Pius X's moto proprio gave pride of place to the pipe organ and rejected a few very specific instruments as well as the use of bands, therefore when Vatican II, drawing on this motu proprio, permits the use of other instruments it is not necessarily permitting the use of those instruments specifically forbidden by Pius X. it did not abrogate pius x's norm because it never specifically said "allow the piano, allow bands, allow drums and cymbals et cetera..."; therefore if there can be made complimentary music with other instruments than the pipe organ such as the violin or other orchestral instruments (instruments which are not specifically mentioned by Pius X or which is not part of a band)

this is my understanding of where Cam draws his assertion that the piano is still not permitted to be used in mass and that the guitar (i.e. specifically a band with a guitar) is dubious.

[franciscanheart]

Having read what Cappie provided and understanding the source behind it, it would seem to me that you are right when saying that things such as bands and band instruments (instruments that are recognized as being suitable for secular music) are not appropriate in worship. (I've never supported anything like that during worship and never will - God help me.)

I apologize if I am being dense but did Pius X forbid use of the piano? If he did not, where are we drawing the conclusion that pianos would not be permitted? They are not, at least in my mind, a band instrument. A keyboard is generally part of secular music these days but I don't see a grand being considered a normal part of secular music. I think that sayin a grand is normal for secular music and therefore unfit for worship is a lot like saying that about an organ. Plenty of rock groups have used the organ in their music but we still hold the organ in high esteem.

Am I making sense or I am showing off my ignorance?

And another question while we're talking about these texts...

To quote what Cappie has provided us:
[quote]64. The use of musical instruments to accompany the singing can act as a support to the voices, render participation easier, and achieve a deeper union in the assembly. However, their sound should not so overwhelm the voices that it is difficult to make out the text; and when some part is proclaimed aloud by the priest or a minister by virtue of his role, they should be silent.[/quote]
During the Mass when we say the Our Father and the priest speaks (before the people say, "for the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory is yours forever and ever"), is it permissable for instruments to play softly? Would this be considered 'some part [that] is proclaimed aloud by the priest or a minister by the virtue of his role'?

I am so ignorant when it comes to things such as these. Please excuse me.

[Cam42]

[quote]I apologize if I am being dense but did Pius X forbid use of the piano?[/quote]

Yes he did. I provided the quote earlier and a link to the quote. It is in Tra Le Sollecitudini. Look to my earlier post.

Also, this document has not been suppressed. Cappie, I would like to see the sources which show that it has been.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1075394' date='Sep 26 2006, 06:04 AM']
During the Mass when we say the Our Father and the priest speaks (before the people say, "for the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory is yours forever and ever"), is it permissable for instruments to play softly? Would this be considered 'some part [that] is proclaimed aloud by the priest or a minister by the virtue of his role'?
[/quote]

I don't believe that it is permissable. I think that I have read somewhere where that is not permissable. I will have to do some research to find it, but I am sure that somewhere along the line I have spoken about it.

[franciscanheart]

Sorry, Cam. I forgot about that tidbit!

Question: If handbells, pianos, tympanies, and other 'noisy' instruments are not allowed, what is? The organ is allowed... and... what else? I know stringed instruments (those that one might find at a symphony) were mentioned. Are those permissable?

[Cam42]

Now, if the employment of the piano is forbidden, as are drums, cymbals, bells and the like, how can it fufill the mandate of Sacrosanctum Concilium #120? If there is to be an organic growth, the logical answer is that it cannot.

By common acception, the piano is considered to be a secular instrument. And that is forbidden for use in the Church because it cannot be rendered apt, precisely because it is a secular istrument, much like the guitar or much like drums, cymbals, bells and the like.

Here is what the Church teaches about aptness;
[quote name='De Musica Sacra #60']The following principles for the use of musical instruments in the sacred liturgy are to be recalled:

a) Because of the nature, sanctity, and dignity of the sacred liturgy, the playing of any musical instrument should be as perfect as possible. It would be preferable to omit the use of instruments entirely (whether it be the organ only, or any other instrument), than to play them in a manner unbecoming their purpose. As a general rule it is better to do something well, however modest, than to attempt something more elaborate without the proper means.

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. 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]

Looking to the last sentence of paragraph b; we see that some instruments are so associated with secular music that they are not at all adaptable for sacred use. The piano would fall into this category. How? Ask Barry Manilow, Lionel Ritchie, or Vanessa Carlton or any host of secular musicians. The piano is more recognizable through them than through the Church.

However, the more stable aspect of this is that Tra Le Sollectudini is the prohibitor of the piano and if Sacrosanctum Concilium is read and applied with tradition and Tradition in mind, then the piano cannot be considered apt nor can bells, drums and cymbals.

The documents documents that I provided were not written 1000 years ago. They are all 20th century documents. Unless the Church has definitvely and actually written something directly to lax or to change the disciplinary nature, then the encylicals are still binding as a matter of obedience to the teaching of the papacy.

All of these documents were written within 50 years of Humanae Vitae. So, because Humane Vitae was written in the 60s; does that mean that it is outdated? No, of course not. But that encyclical is a matter of discipline, too and not infallible. Same logic applies.

[quote name='Inside the Vatican']The Mass is a moment of reflection and encounter with God, rather than a form of entertainment, says Cardinal Francis Arinze.

In an interview with Inside the Vatican magazine, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments made a comprehensive assessment of the recent Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist and of developments in liturgical practice 40 years after the Second Vatican Council.

Regarding "music in the liturgy, we should start by saying that Gregorian music is the Church's precious heritage," he said. "It should stay. It should not be banished. If therefore in a particular diocese or country, no one hears Gregorian music anymore, then somebody has made a mistake somewhere."

However, "the Church is not saying that everything should be Gregorian music," the cardinal clarified. "There is room for music which respects that language, that culture, that people. There is room for that too, and the present books say that is a matter for the bishops' conference, because it generally goes beyond the boundaries of one diocese.

"The ideal thing is that the bishops would have a liturgical music commission which looks at the wording and the music of the hymns. And when the commission is satisfied, judgment is brought to the bishops for approval, in the name of the rest of the conference."

What should not be the case, insists the Nigerian cardinal, is "individuals just composing anything and singing it in church. This is not right at all -- no matter how talented the individual is. That brings us to the question of the instruments to be used.

"The local church should be conscious that church worship is not really the same as what we sing in a bar, or what we sing in a convention for youth. Therefore it should influence the type of instrument used, the type of music used."

Suitability

"I will not now pronounce and say never guitar; that would be rather severe," Cardinal Arinze added. [b]"But much of guitar music may not be suitable at all for the Mass. Yet, it is possible to think of some guitar music that would be suitable, not as the ordinary one we get every time,[/b] [but with] the visit of a special group, etc."

"The judgment would be left to the bishops of the area. It is wiser that way," he pointed out. "Also, because there are other instruments in many countries which are not used in Italy or in Ireland, for instance.

"People don't come to Mass in order to be entertained. They come to Mass to adore God, to thank him, to ask pardon for sins, and to ask for other things that they need."

"When they want entertainment, they know where to go -- parish hall, theater, presuming that their entertainment is acceptable from a moral theological point of view," added the cardinal, 73, who this year celebrated the 40th anniversary of his episcopal ordination.

The synod

In the course of the interview, Cardinal Arinze, who in the recent Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist was one of the delegate presidents, subsequently made a summary of this ecclesial event which gathered 252 bishops.

Speaking of the positive points of the synod, the cardinal said there were many: "Strengthening our faith in the holy Eucharist. No new doctrine, but freshness of expression of our Eucharistic faith. Encouragement in the celebration in the sense of good attention; a celebration which shows faith."

"The synod thanked priests for their ministry and also deacons and others who assist at the celebration of Mass, and underlined the importance of Eucharistic adoration outside Mass which has its fruits in the Mass itself because the Mass is the supreme act of adoration," he continued.

"But the sacrament does not finish after Mass," the cardinal observed. "Christ is in the tabernacle to be brought to the sick, to receive our visits of adoration, praise, love, supplication. The synod fathers did not only talk about adoration -- they did adoration, every day. Christ exposed in the monstrance in the chapel near the Synod Hall, one hour in the morning, one hour in the afternoon."

"The synod also stressed the importance of good preparation for the holy Eucharist; to receive Communion," he noted. "Therefore, confession of sins, for those who are in mortal sin and in any case encouraging the sacrament of penance as a way of growing in fidelity to Christ. And also that not everybody is fit to receive holy Communion, so those who are not fit should not receive."

Protestant view

Referring to a negative tendency in the Western world, the cardinal revealed that an increasing number of Catholics have "a more Protestant concept of the Eucharist, seeing it mainly as a symbol."

The "synod fathers recognize that many Catholics don't have correct faith in the real presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist," he said. "This was mentioned in one of the propositions as well.

"It was recognized so much that many of the synod fathers suggested that there be themes suggested for homilies on Sundays. Seeing that for many Catholics the Sunday homily is about the only religious instruction they get in a week, the synod fathers suggested that the four major areas of Catholic faith should be covered by the homily in a three-year cycle."

The four areas correspond to the parts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

"First part, what we believe," Cardinal Arinze said. "Second part, how we worship, i.e., sacraments. Third part, what we live, life in Christ, so the moral law, the Ten Commandments, the Christian life lived; and the fourth part, prayer."

Therefore, "although the homily should be on the Scripture readings and the other liturgical texts, some way has to be found to cover the whole area of Catholic faith in a period of three years because many Catholics are really ignorant of fundamental matters. That is a fact nobody can deny."

Showmanship

"Vatican II brought many good things but everything has not been positive, and the synod recognized that there have been shadows," Cardinal Arinze acknowledged.

"There has been a bit of neglect of the holy Eucharist outside Mass," he said. "A lot of ignorance. A lot of temptations to showmanship for the priest who celebrates facing the people.

"If he is not very disciplined he will soon become a performer. He may not realize it, but he will be projecting himself rather than projecting Christ. Indeed it is very demanding, the altar facing the people. Then even those who read the First and Second Reading can engage in little tactics that make them draw attention to themselves and distract the people.

"So there are problems. However, some of the problems were not caused by Vatican II, but they were caused by children of the Church after Vatican II. Some of them talking of Vatican II push their own agenda. We have to watch that. People pushing their own agenda, justifying it as the 'spirit of Vatican II.'"

The Vatican prefect continued: "So, if only people would be more faithful to what has been laid down, not by people who just like to make laws for other people, but what follows from what we believe. 'Lex orandi, Lex credendi.' It is our faith that directs our prayer life, and if we genuflect in front of the tabernacle it is because we believe that Jesus is there, and is God."

Abuses not new

Contrary to what many think, he said, "even when there was the Tridentine Mass there were abuses. Many Catholics did not know, because they did not know Latin! So when the priest garbled the words, they were not aware of this.

"Therefore, the most important area is faith and fidelity to that faith, and a faithful reading of the original texts, and their faithful translations, so that people celebrate knowing that the liturgy is the public prayer of the Church."

Cardinal Arinze concluded that the liturgy "is not the property of one individual, therefore an individual does not tinker with it, but makes the effort to celebrate it as Holy Mother Church wants. When that happens, the people are happy, they feel nourished. Their faith grows, their faith is strengthened. They go home happy and willing to come back next Sunday."[/quote]

Here is something that Cardinal Arinze said awhile back:
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/SeriesSearchprog.asp?SeriesID=-6892288&NewList=&T1=world~over"]Cardinal Arinze #3[/url] This starts at 28:40.

[quote name='Sacrosanctum Concilium #120']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.[/quote]

De Musica Sacra #60 quoted above.

[quote name='De Musica Sacra #61']The principal musical instrument for solemn liturgical ceremonies of the Latin Church has been and remains the classic pipe organ.[/quote]

[quote name='Tra Le Sollecitudini #2']....still these forms must be subordinated in such a manner to the general characteristics of sacred music that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good [here meaning, sacred in nature] on hearing them.[/quote]

[quote name='Tra Le Sollecitudini #3']Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces.[/quote]

[quote name='De Musica Sacra #68']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.[/quote]

[quote name='GIRM 393b']While the organ is to be accorded pride of place, other wind, stringed, or percussion instruments may be used in liturgical services in the dioceses of the United States of America, according to longstanding local usage, provided they are truly apt for sacred use or can be rendered apt.[/quote]

Where do you think that the 1970 GIRM got it's understanding about music in the Liturgy? Could it be De Musica Sacra (the Encyclical on Sacred Music)? I think so. Also it could it be from Musica Sacra Diciplina, Musicam Sacram (post-conciliar document), and Tra Le Sollecitudini? I would think so, especially since those are the documents on music in the 20th century. I am not going back to the 7th century or the 12th. I am talking about modern documents here.

If, as Pius X insists, the liturgy is the primary source of the Christian life, everyone must take part in it to achieve salvation. Active participation is not an invention of our day; the Church throughout the ages constantly shared the life of Christ with its members in the Mass and the sacraments, the very actions of Christ Himself working through His Church and His priesthood. For each age the activities deemed by it to be useful in promoting that participation have varied according to the needs and ideas of the period. One cannot say that because the medieval period developed a chant that was largely the possession of monastic choirs, the congregations who listened were not actively participating. Perhaps not according to post-Vatican II standards, but one must carefully avoid the error of judging the past by the present and applying to former times criteria that seem valuable in our own times. Because Palestrina's polyphonic Masses require the singing of trained choirs, can one assume that non-choir members in the renaissance period were deprived of an active participation in the liturgy? No age could permit such a thing to happen and thus be deprived of the primary source of the spiritual life.

The Church is silent about the guitar specifically, but the smaller instruments should be bowed. And there should be avoidance of the suggestion of the secular music. Does the guitar do that? No, it doesn't, it conotates the secular much moreso than the instruments listed above.

[puellapaschalis]

I'd like to respond to Cam's quoting of the "banning of bands" in church in order to derive a ban on guitars: when reading his quotes from Tra Le Sollecitudini and how a band may be permitted during processions outside, it struck me that Pius X might mean some kind of marching, brass or wind band, neither of which have guitars in. So to say [i]"Pius X banned bands, and the main focus of a band is a guitar, thus Pius X banned guitars"[/i] doesn't seem to work with me because that kind of "band" probably didn't even exist in 1903.

I've no doubt that had they been around then, he'd have banned what we understand as a "band" now outright. Or perhaps it just wouldn't have crossed his mind to even mention it because the trash that comes out of most bands these days could only be called music at a long, long stretch from any decent point of view. But from what I understand, he can't have meant something like the Beatles.

But having said that, I find it slightly odd that Pius X explicitly forbids pianos but not (according to my reasoning, and in any event it's not in the text) guitars, both of which most definitely were around at the turn of the 20thC. We're not even talking about electric guitars here - that was patented in the 1930s - what was around was simply acoustics. What's so diabolic about a piano? Was it only played in seedy Houses Of Sin? I hardly think so - we only need to look at the output of Baroque, Classical and Romantic composers (whose timelines bring us up to and in the case of Romanticism somewhat beyond 1903).

So I'm not certain that the context within which the piano was found could have been "moral" grounds if you like for banning it. Perhaps because it was only given a secular repertoire?

From Cappie's post (thanks, Cappie!) I understand that the organ was developed [i]specifically[/i] to support the Sacred Liturgy. It didn't have any secular genesis. Perhaps that, then, is the crucial difference between the organ and the piano from Pius X's point of view. The organ's entire existence has been dedicated to church services (although personally I'd want to sit up and wave Bach's Toccata's around here as counter-examples) but the piano hasn't.

However, what I understand from musicam sacram is that a secular origin isn't necessarily a bar to an instrument being somehow worthy to perform (in appropriate situations) in church. Why else would a flute be permitted, when a Pied Piper used one to cart off a village's worth of children? If that's so, then I'm not sure it's reasonable to allow some not-originally-holy instruments a place during the liturgy, but to forbid others simply because they had the unfortunate luck to exist when Pius X was around seems a bit mean.

Having blathered on thus far, I'll reiterate that I just prefer Greggors and Palestrina. Mmmmmm

Love and prayers,

PP

[be_thou_my_vision]

I'm sorry, but I don't see why this is such a big deal. I think God likes guitar. It can be very beautiful... just like a flute, piano, or harp. I just don't see why this is such a big issue. I don't mean to be a party pooper, but does it really matter what instruments we use if they are played respectfully? Doesn't it say somewhere is psalms "praise Him with timbrel and harp"??

[franciscanheart]

I'm not sure I agree that the piano is a secular instrument. I understand that some artists have used this beautiful instrument for their secular music but the piano has been around for ages. It has been used for a very long time - a time that outdates Barry Manilow and Lionel Ritchie by far. If in the next six years the organ is brought into secular music the way guitars and piano has been brought in, will we consider the organ an instrument of secular nature? No. So why do we make that exception with the piano?

Why are so many churches out of line with this teaching? I know if I brought this up at my parish it would be pushed aside as something too small to deal with when there were other, much more pressing matters with which to be dealt. I would be reprimanded for wasting someone's time or looked down upon for wanting to be in line with the teaching of the Church. Everything these days seems to revolve around money. Things that are sacred or that have to do with the sacred take little precedence over matters of financial nature.

The other day at a book club meeting the older women were talking about our monsignor. They were talking about how great he was and how orthodox he helped our church to be. He didn't care how many people spoke out against his thoughts, he held his ground. It wasn't until after he moved out of the head position (possibly out of the church completely and into the retirement home) that we established the guitar choir. It has been around for about 12 years and I don't see any sign of it ending.

We used to have a handbell choir but that died a long time ago. I'm not sure what happened with it. That would have been against church teaching as well, right?

I'm so amazed at how out of line SO many churches are. I know a lot of people would be really mean about the issue if it were brought up. It would seem 'overboard' or 'too strict' to a lot of people, I'm sure.

I've debated for several months now whether or not I should remain a part of the choir I am in now. I am in the guitar choir because it is, for lack of a better phrase, the easy choir. There are a couple of strong singers that really hold the group together but up until this choir season, there were no auditions. It is the 'lowest' of the choirs, to be sure. (Actually, there are only two choirs. We have cantors that sing the other Masses.) The other choir I'm pretty sure is an organ only choir. I don't recall ever seeing our director use the piano. The problem is I really don't think I'm up to par. They sing amazing pieces and I doubt I could be there without slowing them down. (Our schola guys are a part of this choir as well. Our schola is amazing.) So really the only reason (though I'm sure you haven't been able to tell thus far) for not dropping out of the guitar choir and TRYING for the other is because I'm afraid I'll be left with no place to go. I feel like I'll not have any place to sing and that'll be disappointing. I don't want to participate in something that is not aiding others in their heavenly experience but at the same time, I don't want to give up music completely (and this is my only music time right now).

puellapaschalis brings up a great point which aids me in mine. Lionel Richie was not around at the time of Pius X and so such references are irrelevant when speaking about Pius X's writings. I pretty much whole heartedly thumbs up the post by puellapaschalis. Good points...

BTW - I have my own reservations about guitars at Mass (though it may be due to abuses I've seen at my own church). My main 'fight' would be for the piano.

[puellapaschalis]

I left a choir/music group in my childhood parish because with the singers, guitarists, violinists, flutists, cellists and a few other things, I found myself worrying more about where the next piece of paper was more than what on earth was going on up on the sanctuary. To top it all off (you'll love this, Hughey), we sat right at the front of the church. I defected to a later Mass with an organ and choir, became an altar server and learnt how to thiruf like you'd never imagine.

My curiousity is peaked as to why Pius X banned the piano but not the guitar.

Longevity doesn't necessarily make something "non-secular". It's surely the usage that does that, right? I'd need to dig deep in my notes to read about the history of the piano to be sure, but something tells me it grew as a home instrument, for small spaces and an informal setting. Given all that I could understand it being shunned in comparison to the organ...but that still doesn't explain the silence about the guitar.

On the same hand but going in a different direction, whilst the organ may have started out as a "church thing" but there's a whole stackload of non-sacred music for it out there (so what if the Widor is played at St. Peter's now and then? I don't think that qualifies the piece as sacred music. It hardly supports anything liturgical other than perhaps the recessional).

Oh well. Time for a nap and perhaps some rest will sort out the fuzz in my head.

Love and prayers,

PP

[franciscanheart]

I'm not saying that longevity would change the secular title but rather that the longevity might prove it to have only recently entered the secular category. Given different pieces that are played on the organ during the processions, it would seem to me that the piano would not be so vile (as it concerns it's usage during the Mass).

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1075498' date='Sep 26 2006, 10:24 AM']
To top it all off (you'll love this, Hughey), we sat right at the front of the church.
[/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote name='hugheyforlife']I'm not sure I agree that the piano is a secular instrument...My main 'fight' would be for the piano.[/quote]

The easiest way to show you is to ask you (or anyone who can provide) to give me Catholic sacred musical texts written for the piano prior to the 1960's.

Remember, by common estimation the instrument in question must be proven apt for use in the Sacred Liturgy. The Piano, etc....have been most definitely defined as otherwise. Like I said the guitar is debatable, but the documents don't look to support guitar music very much.

[quote name='puellapaschalis']So to say "Pius X banned bands, and the main focus of a band is a guitar, thus Pius X banned guitars" doesn't seem to work with me because that kind of "band" probably didn't even exist in 1903.[/quote]

Probably? Or Certainly? When you add probably to the context, you leave open the door that the guitar may have been part of a band at the time, therefore there is a specific banning.

Also you ask;
[quote name='puellapaschalis']What's so diabolic about a piano?[/quote]

That is the wrong attitude. Just because something is not apt for the Sacred Liturgy doesn't mean that it is diabolic. It simply means that it is profane and not apt for use in said context.

[quote name='puellapaschalis']Why else would a flute be permitted, when a Pied Piper used one to cart off a village's worth of children?[/quote]

It is allowed because wind instruments are allowed. Last time I checked the flute was a wind instrument.

[quote name='puellapaschalis']If that's so, then I'm not sure it's reasonable to allow some not-originally-holy instruments a place during the liturgy, but to forbid others simply because they had the unfortunate luck to exist when Pius X was around seems a bit mean.[/quote]

Meanness really isn't the focus. What is the focus is that there are instruments which are apt for the Liturgy and there are those which are not. I don't see how one can be mean to a thing, at any rate. It is like saying, "You are being mean to that table."

[quote name='be_thou_my_vision']I don't mean to be a party pooper, but does it really matter what instruments we use if they are played respectfully?[/quote]

Of course it matters. Are we not to give GREATER glory to God? Yes. And if we simply use whatever we have around, then we are not giving GREATER glory to God, but simply praising God. Let us not forget what Pope St. Pius X, Francis Cardinal Arinze, et al., have said about the nobility of the Liturgy. There is pride of place and that must be taken into consideration.

[quote name='be_thou_my_vision']Doesn't it say somewhere is psalms "praise Him with timbrel and harp"??[/quote]

That is part of OT theology and accordingly the OT theology is to be taken in light of NT theology. The OT was fulfilled in the NT and the Sacred Liturgy is far more praiseworthy than OT praise and worship.

[quote name='hugheyforlife']Why are so many churches out of line with this teaching?[/quote]

One word. Abuse.

[quote name='puellapaschalis']My curiousity is peaked as to why Pius X banned the piano but not the guitar?[/quote]

Because the guitar was a minor instrument. The focus on the guitar as an instrument didn't really hit the mainstream until the 1930's. It didn't merit the same focus as the piano, which had been used for centuries by composers of note. However, notice that the composers didn't compose Sacred music for piano. That is why by common esitimation it was/is secular.

[franciscanheart]

Guitars are stringed instruments so as long as we're going along with the broad acceptance of wind and stringed instruments, guitars would be allowed. And what about the point where it says that other instruments are to be permitted in the United States?
[quote name='(GIRM 393b)']
While the organ is to be accorded pride of place, other wind, stringed, or percussion instruments may be used in liturgical services in the dioceses of the United States of America, according to longstanding local usage, provided they are truly apt for sacred use or can be rendered apt.[/quote]
What percussion would be permitted? I have mentioned tympanies several times. Would those fall under this category? It seems as though you are trying to limit this document only to its inspiration and not allowing for room where it says "other wind, stringed, or percussion instruments may be used... according to longstanding local usage.." and you are the one who gave it to us. When was all of this written? The piano has been used for quite some time. Has it not been played in Mass long enough to be considered longstanding local usage?

[quote name='Cam42' post='1075506' date='Sep 26 2006, 10:33 AM']
Because the guitar was a minor instrument. The focus on the guitar as an instrument didn't really hit the mainstream until the 1930's. It didn't merit the same focus as the piano, which had been used for centuries by composers of note. However, notice that the composers didn't compose Sacred music for piano. That is why by common esitimation it was/is secular.
[/quote]
But if we are to approach every instrument in that way, no instrument other than the organ would be permitted at Mass and that is obviously not what is stated to be allowed in the GIRM and a number of other sources you have provided.

[Cam42]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1075518' date='Sep 26 2006, 09:40 AM']
Guitars are stringed instruments so as long as we're going along with the broad acceptance of wind and stringed instruments, guitars would be allowed. And what about the point where it says that other instruments are to be permitted in the United States?[/quote]

Are guitars apt? If so, how? And do guitars meet the critieria of the universal Church? If there is a dispute and it goes to Rome, Rome would speak. I believe that Rome has spoken in the person of Cardinal Arinze and he was not exactly supportive of the guitar as to the solemnity of the instrument or the times in which it should be used. Actually, his words were not supportive at all.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1075518' date='Sep 26 2006, 09:40 AM']What percussion would be permitted? I have mentioned tympanies several times. Would those fall under this category? It seems as though you are trying to limit this document only to its inspiration and not allowing for room where it says "other wind, stringed, or percussion instruments may be used... according to longstanding local usage.." and you are the one who gave it to us. When was all of this written? The piano has been used for quite some time. Has it not been played in Mass long enough to be considered longstanding local usage?[/quote]

Tympani are traditionally accepted as because of the tunablity of the instrument.

Taking the quote in context, it would seem that stringed instruments would not include the guitar, precisely because the guitar is not mentioned in any other document, however, other stringed intruments were/are.

And speaking of the length of time 40+ years in the 2000 year history of the Church certainly is not considered longstanding. I would say that it would be the direct opposite. However, I would suggest that 1000+ years of the organ and 400+ years of orchestral pieces would qualify as longstanding.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1075518' date='Sep 26 2006, 09:40 AM']But if we are to approach every instrument in that way, no instrument other than the organ would be permitted at Mass and that is obviously not what is stated to be allowed in the GIRM and a number of other sources you have provided.
[/quote]

I disagree. Other instruments are allowed for. Other instruments can be rendered and are apt. However, I know for certain that the piano is not and that the guitar by ommission is not apt nor is there anything that states that it can be rendered apt.

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1075506' date='Sep 26 2006, 05:33 PM']Probably? Or Certainly? When you add probably to the context, you leave open the door that the guitar may have been part of a band at the time, therefore there is a specific banning.[/quote]

Ok, I'll stick my neck out and say certainly. I'm about 99% sure that you didn't have bands in the shape of guitar-bass-keyboards-drum kit at the end of the 19thC. I invite you to find a counter-example to which we can apply Pius X's attitude to "bands".

[quote name='Cam42' post='1075506' date='Sep 26 2006, 05:33 PM']It is allowed because wind instruments are allowed. Last time I checked the flute was a wind instrument.[/quote]

So is the qualifying factor whether the instrument is considered "secular" or "non-secular", or is it how exactly the sound is produced? Are secular wind instruments allowed? Come to think of it, are there any non-secular wind instruments (I'm excluding the human voice here for obvious reasons) other than the (pipe) organ?

[quote name='Cam42' post='1075506' date='Sep 26 2006, 05:33 PM']Meanness really isn't the focus. What is the focus is that there are instruments which are apt for the Liturgy and there are those which are not. I don't see how one can be mean to a thing, at any rate. It is like saying, "You are being mean to that table."[/quote]

All right, I'm guilty of anthropomorphosising (and probably spelling errors too). I'll leave it to pointing to the gap in reasoning.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1075506' date='Sep 26 2006, 05:33 PM']Because the guitar was a minor instrument. The focus on the guitar as an instrument didn't really hit the mainstream until the 1930's. It didn't merit the same focus as the piano, which had been used for centuries by composers of note. However, notice that the composers didn't compose Sacred music for piano. That is why by common esitimation it was/is secular.[/quote]

[url="http://www.musicated.com/CGCL/music/CGCL_chron.html"]This list[/url] would suggest that whilst perhaps the guitar didn't (doesn't?) enjoy the coverage the piano did (does), it wasn't a "minor instrument". The repertoire is large and it's been a popular instrument for longer than most people might imagine.

FInally, I'd want to point out that if string instruments are permitted then not only should the guitar be permitted (assuming we're operating on the criterion of "how is the sound produced"), but the piano should also be so, since it's also a stringed instrument.

Love and prayers,

PP