Concerning Instruments at Mass - Part II

[chatbox829]

Guess i'm weird but i don't really have a problem with new music and other instuments i don't really care as long as the people are into it and mean what they are saying being in highschool still i conect better with fast up beat music and don't like to only sing traditional songs but it has to be about God i once was at mass and they were playing songs that had no relation to God but were reandom Jazz songs it was really weird however i also am very musically orintated and will randomly be singing song so i guess music just make everything click for me it hepls me feel like i'm invovled

[franciscanheart]

I'm actually somewhat glad you bumped this... I was talking to my music director and he said Cam is nuts. : haha. Basically. I trust him. :

[zunshynn]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1088699' date='Oct 10 2006, 08:50 PM']
I'm actually somewhat glad you bumped this... I was talking to my music director and he said Cam is nuts. : haha. Basically. I trust him. :
[/quote]

Well, perhaps Cam is nuts, but he was hardly giving his opinion, so it doesn't matter if he's nuts or not. He was clearly giving us over and over again in direct quotes what the Church actually states in regards to music. How, with all of that, one could justify the use of the guitar during Mass, and joke about how he must be nuts is beyond me. Drums and piano are clearly forbidden, and the guitar by pure logic clearly falls into that category, rather than into the category of liturgical instruments. If your music director had official Church documents that support his opinion I'd be interested in hearing them... it would really put me at ease, because I've looked, and so far all I see are people's opinions. Don't suggest that he's nuts when all he's done is show us document after document explaining how he came to his position.

It is the Church's responsibility to see to it that the celebration of the Mass gives us the proper sentiments. The celebration of Mass should help us experience its transcendence over time and place, so of course, when the guitar is found everywhere in secular music, it is appropriate for the Church to opt to not permit it at mass, because at Mass, we should be experiencing something different. And as Cam said, just because the Church says its inappropriate for the liturgy doesn't mean it's bad or even that it could not be used elsewhere in another form of worship. PERSONALLY, I don't really see anything wrong with a piano at Mass... but it's not up to me. I must obey the Church.

The majority of Catholics think that contraception will be good for their marriage too. The majority think it's mean of the Church to tell them that it's wrong, and ignore it and use it anyway. Does that make them right? Of course not! So just because the majority of parishes have been led to think that all of this has changed or chosen to ignore it doesn't mean that they're correct. Just because the majority of people think having "contemporary" music at mass helps them worship doesn't mean that it really will as much as obeying what the Church demands from music. Just like the couple that thinks contraception is good for them is actually mistaken, and they would more richly blessed than they realize following the Church.

Edited October 11, 2006 by zunshynn

[cmotherofpirl]

This does not belong to the vocation board it going to trans.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1088832' date='Oct 11 2006, 02:13 AM']
Well, perhaps Cam is nuts, but he was hardly giving his opinion, so it doesn't matter if he's nuts or not. He was clearly giving us over and over again in direct quotes what the Church actually states in regards to music. How, with all of that, one could justify the use of the guitar during Mass, and joke about how he must be nuts is beyond me. Drums and piano are clearly forbidden, and the guitar by pure logic clearly falls into that category, rather than into the category of liturgical instruments. If your music director had official Church documents that support his opinion I'd be interested in hearing them... it would really put me at ease, because I've looked, and so far all I see are people's opinions. Don't suggest that he's nuts when all he's done is show us document after document explaining how he came to his position.

It is the Church's responsibility to see to it that the celebration of the Mass gives us the proper sentiments. The celebration of Mass should help us experience its transcendence over time and place, so of course, when the guitar is found everywhere in secular music, it is appropriate for the Church to opt to not permit it at mass, because at Mass, we should be experiencing something different. And as Cam said, just because the Church says its inappropriate for the liturgy doesn't mean it's bad or even that it could not be used elsewhere in another form of worship. PERSONALLY, I don't really see anything wrong with a piano at Mass... but it's not up to me. I must obey the Church.

The majority of Catholics think that contraception will be good for their marriage too. The majority think it's mean of the Church to tell them that it's wrong, and ignore it and use it anyway. Does that make them right? Of course not! So just because the majority of parishes have been led to think that all of this has changed or chosen to ignore it doesn't mean that they're correct. Just because the majority of people think having "contemporary" music at mass helps them worship doesn't mean that it really will as much as obeying what the Church demands from music. Just like the couple that thinks contraception is good for them is actually mistaken, and they would more richly blessed than they realize following the Church.
[/quote]
Way to freak out there.

I'll talk to my music directors again and have them point out exactly to me what I can show to you to show that what Cam says may have some truth to it but that it's not the full truth. I honestly DO NOT believe there would be pianos or guitars at a WORLD YOUTH DAY MASS if the Pope (or the Church) had a problem with it.

Now... if you could calm down for a while, I'll be asking soon. Thanks.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1089101' date='Oct 11 2006, 11:03 AM']
Way to freak out there.

I'll talk to my music directors again and have them point out exactly to me what I can show to you to show that what Cam says may have some truth to it but that it's not the full truth. I honestly DO NOT believe there would be pianos or guitars at a WORLD YOUTH DAY MASS if the Pope (or the Church) had a problem with it.

Now... if you could calm down for a while, I'll be asking soon. Thanks.
[/quote]

I wasn't freaking out. But I think you were being rather rude, when all Cam has done is show us Church documents.

Anyway, alot of things happen at World Youth Day that Pope probably would not approve of. The Stations of the Cross with a woman playing Jesus as just one example. But he's not in charge of any of the details or figuring out what music will be used or any of that, the vatican picks someone from the diocese they're going to to organize everything.

Exactly... when things are widespread, like liturgical abuses, people can get to thinking that it must be ok, when in fact it is not... and because it is so widespread, of course the Church is going to be careful when it goes about correcting such things... but that doesn't mean they approve.

The pope talks to sisters that don't wear habits a lot too, and probably doesn't just tell them that they're not in line with what the Church calls for. But does that mean that they are in line with what the Church wants just because it's widespread and no one has said so to them, and perhaps they aren't even aware of what Vatican II said about the habit? No... but the Church in this instance to is going to tread lightly. That doesn't mean She approves.

Edited October 11, 2006 by zunshynn

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1089117' date='Oct 11 2006, 01:17 PM']
I wasn't freaking out. But I think you were being rather rude, when all Cam has done is show us Church documents.

Anyway, alot of things happen at World Youth Day that Pope probably would not approve of. The Stations of the Cross with a woman playing Jesus as just one example. But he's not in charge of any of the details or figuring out what music will be used or any of that, the vatican picks someone from the diocese they're going to to organize everything.

Exactly... when things are widespread, like liturgical abuses, people can get to thinking that it must be ok, when in fact it is not... and because it is so widespread, of course the Church is going to be careful when it goes about correcting such things... but that doesn't mean they approve.

The pope talks to sisters that don't wear habits a lot too, and probably doesn't just tell them that they're not in line with what the Church calls for. But does that mean that they are in line with what the Church wants just because it's widespread and no one has said so to them, and perhaps they aren't even aware of what Vatican II said about the habit? No... but the Church in this instance to is going to tread lightly. That doesn't mean She approves.
[/quote]
A couple of questions for you: The stations of the Cross that you mentioned, did they happen within the ACTUAL World Youth Day celebration on the property established for the event or was this the leading up to portion of the the worldwide celebration? When we had Days in the Diocese in Montreal, we were at 'world youth day' but not World Youth Day. World Youth Day was when we were at downsview (or whatever it was) for that last day or so. That was World Youth Day, not anything before it. Those were all like tail-gate parties.

Do you really believe that the nuns or sisters that do not wear habits have NEVER been confronted about why they do not keep with tradition? I can't believe you would actually think that.

Forgive me, but it seems a little naive.

I have no doubt in my mind that if there was some widespread abuse (like pianos that seem to be in nearly EVERY church in America) that SOMEONE of authority would say SOMETHING to make it stop. Instead, we hear a lot of opinions about proper music. You know what? I would LOVE to have only the organ in Mass. I LOVE the schola. I LOVE CHANT. But I'm not about to sit here and point fingers at people who use pianos and guitars when there is NOTHING that STRICTLY FORBIDS their use.

Cam should be a lawyer. He's good at twisting things around and putting them into a perspective that will leave you thinking what he does.

I'll give you something hard soon... I just need to get back with my director who has hard copies of the text and a much higher knowledge of these things than myself. (After all, they did go to school for liturgical music and our main director has been working in our parish alone for almost 15 years.)

And I'm okay with you thinking I was rude. Perhaps I did not add in enough smilies or nudge everyone hard enough when I was joking around about my director saying Cam was wrong. It was a light-hearted comment on my part and whether or not you think it was classy, it is not your place to judge.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1089130' date='Oct 11 2006, 11:41 AM']
A couple of questions for you: The stations of the Cross that you mentioned, did they happen within the ACTUAL World Youth Day celebration on the property established for the event or was this the leading up to portion of the the worldwide celebration? When we had Days in the Diocese in Montreal, we were at 'world youth day' but not World Youth Day. World Youth Day was when we were at downsview (or whatever it was) for that last day or so. That was World Youth Day, not anything before it. Those were all like tail-gate parties.[/quote]

It was, to the best of my knowledge, the Stations of the Cross planned for that year that they always have at World Youth Day. But that isn't the point I was making. That was an example... the point was that the Pope isn't making the decisions in regards to how World Youth Day will be.

[quote]Do you really believe that the nuns or sisters that do not wear habits have NEVER been confronted about why they do not keep with tradition? I can't believe you would actually think that.

Forgive me, but it seems a little naive.[/quote]

I didn't say that I thought they'd never been confronted about it. Do I think when a sister is visiting Rome and meeting the pope that he's going to bring up the fact that they're not wearing a habit right then. No, I can't see that happening. I know sisters that don't wear a habit and have met the pope... I'm pretty sure he didn't say anything about that. And no, I don't think that's naive. We're talking about the Vatican, no? They tend to stay focused on the matter at hand. When the pope is greeting people he's usually just greeting people, not telling them what they're doing wrong.

[quote]I have no doubt in my mind that if there was some widespread abuse (like pianos that seem to be in nearly EVERY church in America) that SOMEONE of authority would say SOMETHING to make it stop. Instead, we hear a lot of opinions about proper music. You know what? I would LOVE to have only the organ in Mass. I LOVE the schola. I LOVE CHANT. But I'm not about to sit here and point fingers at people who use pianos and guitars when there is NOTHING that STRICTLY FORBIDS their use.

Cam should be a lawyer. He's good at twisting things around and putting them into a perspective that will leave you thinking what he does.

I'll give you something hard soon... I just need to get back with my director who has hard copies of the text and a much higher knowledge of these things than myself. (After all, they did go to school for liturgical music and our main director has been working in our parish alone for almost 15 years.)[/quote]

I think Cardinal Arinze being the Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship saying that guitars are inappropriate for the liturgy was "SOMEONE of authority" saying "SOMETHING to make it stop". I understand you wanting to see a specific document that says no guitars... but as I have already said, if you just look at how the Vatican has always worked, they tend to be slow and cautious with such things. They don't just whip out documents, even when there are widespread abuses, telling us exactly what to do in a given situation. When has the Vatican ever worked like that?

We are obliged to take into consideration what the Church HAS already said on the subject and make a careful judgement as to what the Church probably intended. The Church doesn't tell us exactly what choices to make in a given situation... she teaches us how to approach it and tells us to make a decision in light of that. The Church has clearly implied numerous times what type of music is appropriate for mass, even when its not explicit... and we really shouldn't be ignoring that guidance.

I'm serious about the documents that state otherwise. I've always had guitar and piano at Mass... it doesn't particularly bother me, I used to like it alot actually... and I've never particularly liked the organ. But that decision is better left to the Church than to me. Every document I've looked at seems to suggest that she never changed her mind about the celebration of the liturgy and to support Cam's point, even in very modern documents like Ecclesia de Eucharistia. I've not seen anything to suggest otherwise, except that "everyone does it."


by the way, I'm really busy at the moment, so while I'm interested in seeing what you find, don't be offended if I don't respond right away.

[franciscanheart]

Don't worry it won't be anytime within the next day or two. It'll be at least Sunday before I get to talk to Michael again - he's busy.

I too was hoppin on board with Cam so I was suprised when Michael said that wasn't the case.

Anyway, I'll get back to this when I can.

[cathgirl]

I haven't read this whole thread nor have I researched/looked into the topic at great detail, but I thought I'd share my opinion anyway. Whenever I stay with my grandparents we attend a small country parish that is basically located in the middle of a cornfield. Since it isn't in a highly populated area, there are few parisheners and thus few people who are able to offer their musical talents. One man can play the guitar and another lady can play the piano, but other than that, there is not way to get any other type of instrument. What amazes me though, especially when I am listening to the man play the guitar, is the faith in his voice when he is singing. He is a farmer who has been through many tough times and is truly a man of God who is so happy to lead the parisheners in music. I don't find that he attracts any attention whatsoever away from Jesus when he leads the songs, but it is difficult for his subtle expression of his faith in God and love for God to remain unnoticed. I just had to mention this so that everyone would realize that it is not always possible for many small parishes with few families to come up with the means for any type of music besides that of the guitar or piano. Again, I don't have time to read through the whole threadmand I haven't read any Church documents regarding the topic of music during mass, but I thought that I might throw this point out there. God bless!

[Church Punk]

Bach wrote some of the most amazing hymns on the guitar and is perhaps one of the greatest musicians the world has ever seen. That said there needs to be a seperation from "Modern rock music" and reverantness at mass.

Maybe we can ask our selfs this question, would the Pope be offended if the classical guitar was used during a mass, that is someone playing Ave Maria or another classical hymn on the guitar?

I agree that the modern Christian rock and roll type songs should be reserved for events other than the mass and personally I perfer the traditional Gregorian/ Tiaze chants over any modern music at mass.

[scardella]

I had a long, drawn out debate w/ Cam on the issue, and I stand by my conclusion: based on the texts he gave me, it's ultimately up to the judgement of the musical director. It gives very little guidance as to what is acceptable or not. It basically boils down to "can be made appropriate for sacred worship" or something similar, but never really defines what that is.

Furthermore, the only documents he provided that said anything clear on the subject are pre-VII, and it's not clear how the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy modifies those, if at all.

On a side note, (Cam, particularly you if you're reading this) can anyone point me to something regarding projectors, etc. during sacred liturgy?

[franciscanheart]

I completely forgot to ask about this. Oh well.. Scardella came to the same conclusion that all the directors and priests I have spoken with. Projectors... oh my.

[Cam42]

There are a couple of things that need to be said, first, I am not nuts. I have spent many years studying this very topic and hughey, I think that you can tell Michael that if he'd like to register and hash this out, I would love to do so.

The Church is clear, despite what Scardella and Michael would like to think. Justification for abuse does not excuse the abuse. Also age of the document doesn't have one thing to do with the validity and binding of said document. That is a mistake to assume that because a Council took place ALL the other documentation on the subject is now moot.

[quote name='zunshynn']He was clearly giving us over and over again in direct quotes what the Church actually states in regards to music. How, with all of that, one could justify the use of the guitar during Mass, and joke about how he must be nuts is beyond me. Drums and piano are clearly forbidden, and the guitar by pure logic clearly falls into that category, rather than into the category of liturgical instruments. If your music director had official Church documents that support his opinion I'd be interested in hearing them... it would really put me at ease, because I've looked, and so far all I see are people's opinions. Don't suggest that he's nuts when all he's done is show us document after document explaining how he came to his position.[/quote]

Thank you.

[quote name='hughey']I honestly DO NOT believe there would be pianos or guitars at a WORLD YOUTH DAY MASS if the Pope (or the Church) had a problem with it.[/quote]

Who is in charge of the music in your parish? Michael or the pastor?

[quote name='zunshynn']But he's not in charge of any of the details or figuring out what music will be used or any of that, the vatican picks someone from the diocese they're going to to organize everything.[/quote]

Ding Ding Ding.....if that were not the case, then why does Archbishop Marini have the job that he does?

[quote name='hughey']But I'm not about to sit here and point fingers at people who use pianos and guitars when there is NOTHING that STRICTLY FORBIDS their use.[/quote]

But pianos are forbidden....
[quote name='Tra Le Sollectudini #19']The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.[/quote]

[quote name='hughey']Cam should be a lawyer. He's good at twisting things around and putting them into a perspective that will leave you thinking what he does.[/quote]

I have simply given what the Church teaches then I have defended them. I don't want to be a lawyer.

[quote name='hughey']Perhaps I did not add in enough smilies or nudge everyone hard enough when I was joking around about my director saying Cam was wrong. It was a light-hearted comment on my part and whether or not you think it was classy, it is not your place to judge.[/quote]

But is mine to judge and it offended me. I spent years living with one of the WORLD'S foremost musicologists and I formally studied the Liturgy and Ceremonies while in school. That is where my viewpoint comes from. Who are you to simply dismiss it based on some guy named Michael.

[quote name='zunshynn']We are obliged to take into consideration what the Church HAS already said on the subject and make a careful judgement as to what the Church probably intended. The Church doesn't tell us exactly what choices to make in a given situation... she teaches us how to approach it and tells us to make a decision in light of that. The Church has clearly implied numerous times what type of music is appropriate for mass, even when its not explicit... and we really shouldn't be ignoring that guidance.[/quote]

Yep. We have free will....unfortunately we can and often do choose wrong with that will.

[quote name='zunshynn']Every document I've looked at seems to suggest that she never changed her mind about the celebration of the liturgy and to support Cam's point, even in very modern documents like Ecclesia de Eucharistia. I've not seen anything to suggest otherwise, except that "everyone does it."[/quote]

I'm not jumping off any bridges and it seems as if you are not either.

[quote name='Church Punk']Bach wrote some of the most amazing hymns on the guitar and is perhaps one of the greatest musicians the world has ever seen.[/quote]

Not that were intended for the Mass.....Sorry, but his music for guitar was secular, not Sacred.

[quote name='Church Punk']Maybe we can ask our selfs this question, would the Pope be offended if the classical guitar was used during a mass, that is someone playing Ave Maria or another classical hymn on the guitar?[/quote]

Not appropriate.

[quote name='scardella'] had a long, drawn out debate w/ Cam on the issue, and I stand by my conclusion: based on the texts he gave me, it's ultimately up to the judgement of the musical director.[/quote]

Where does any document say anything about anything being ultimately up to the musical director? And that doesn't support hughey when she wants to lay all of this down on the Pope. If the Pope is making the decisions about the Liturgy, then why do we even have music directors? Shouldn't the Pope/Bishops/Priests be making all of the Liturgical decisions? That is what hughey is supposing, by bringing WYD into the conversation.

[quote name='scardella'] Furthermore, the only documents he provided that said anything clear on the subject are pre-VII, and it's not clear how the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy modifies those, if at all.[/quote]

Show me where there is a document that abbrogates the documentation previous to Vatican Council II? Also, there was a lot written before the Council, so do we simply pick and choose what is allowable and what is not? Since Tra Le Sollectudini is not accpetable any longer, how about Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus? Is that still acceptable? Or can we abandon that one too? Your post makes no sense and doesn't rebut my position at all.....

[quote name='hughey']Scardella came to the same conclusion that all the directors and priests I have spoken with.[/quote]

Fortunately for you the Church doesn't see it that way......perhaps more catechesis is needed.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='scardella' post='1093075' date='Oct 16 2006, 12:04 PM']
I had a long, drawn out debate w/ Cam on the issue, and I stand by my conclusion: based on the texts he gave me, it's ultimately up to the judgement of the musical director. It gives very little guidance as to what is acceptable or not. It basically boils down to "can be made appropriate for sacred worship" or something similar, but never really defines what that is.

Furthermore, the only documents he provided that said anything clear on the subject are pre-VII, and it's not clear how the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy modifies those, if at all.
[/quote]

If more modern documents are less clear as to what has been modified then it only makes sense to assume that they were not modified. Think about it... if it's less explicit than it just means it reaffirming something, rather than changing it.

As to musical directors being in charge... nothing is just up to the whims of an individual in the Catholic Church. Never has been, and nothing put them in charge of making decisions. They should be animated by respect for the Church's guidance on liturgical music not just deciding what they think sounds good.

I could care less what music my musical director likes privately, and I don't care if she likes what I listen to myself. Just because I find contemporary Christian music conducive to worship personally and she seems to like puppet shows and folky "hymns" from the eighties doesn't mean either of us can choose that for mass. It's a good thing it's up to the Church... and unfortunate so many ignore it.

[quote]
On a side note, (Cam, particularly you if you're reading this) can anyone point me to something regarding projectors, etc. during sacred liturgy?
[/quote]



As for the country church post... I sympathize with that. No one is suggesting they need a huge choir... but perhaps a cappella would be the way to go in such a situation. I love a cappella. sigh...

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093105' date='Oct 16 2006, 02:00 PM']There are a couple of things that need to be said, first, I am not nuts. I have spent many years studying this very topic and hughey, I think that you can tell Michael that if he'd like to register and hash this out, I would love to do so.
[/quote]
First, Michael didn't call you nuts. Technically, I did. He made a comment about the whole population of people that like to convince others that such things as pianos and guitars are innappropriate for worship and condemned by the Vatican. It really wasn't even a complete comment as there were three of us discussing the matter (two directors and myself) and we tend to talk over each other.

Secondly, Michael isn't the type to join a message board and debate with the likes of you about musical practices in the Church. He's busy in a hospital caring for sick and dying people and playing the organ for Masses, funerals, and other things at our church. Basically, he has no time for stuff like phatmass. (I doubt though, even if he did have the time, that he would care to sit and debate with someone he doesn't know and who does not have any direct influence in musical matters in the Church, over these or other documents. If you knew him in person he might have some fun and debate with you but I doubt you would ever reach a conclusion. He does more productive things with his time.)

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093105' date='Oct 16 2006, 02:00 PM']
Who is in charge of the music in your parish? Michael or the pastor?
[/quote]
Our pastor, a canon lawyer, is in charge of all things in the parish. Michael is under our pastor.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093105' date='Oct 16 2006, 02:00 PM']
But is mine to judge and it offended me. I spent years living with one of the WORLD'S foremost musicologists and I formally studied the Liturgy and Ceremonies while in school. That is where my viewpoint comes from. Who are you to simply dismiss it based on some guy named Michael.
[/quote]
Some guy named Michael is a person who is under the direction of a canon lawyer and also studied Liturgy and Ceremonies in school. Given the amount of schooling he has received in liturgical music, your dismissal of him is a bit quick. You do not know him, therefore you do not trust his opinion.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093105' date='Oct 16 2006, 02:00 PM']
Fortunately for you the Church doesn't see it that way......perhaps more catechesis is needed.
[/quote]
How does that make me fortunate?

[Cam42]

Ummm, hughey......

I only asked Michael to sign up. The rest of my post was directed to you, unless otherwise noted.

[quote]He made a comment about the whole population of people that like to convince others that such things as pianos and guitars are innappropriate for worship and condemned by the Vatican.[/quote]

Since pianos are condemned, I would hope that his comment supports what I posted. I have posted it multiple times. Tra Le Sollectudini #19.

[quote]Secondly, Michael isn't the type to join a message board and debate with the likes of you about musical practices in the Church. He's busy in a hospital caring for sick and dying people and playing the organ for Masses, funerals, and other things at our church.[/quote]

Are you assuming that "the likes of me" are not educated enough to hold a conversation? Are you assuming that I am simply sitting in a cave and don't do anything for my parish? Are you assuming that I am not busy with apostolic works? Those are some pretty big assumptions!!!!

[quote]Basically, he has no time for stuff like phatmass. (I doubt though, even if he did have the time, that he would care to sit and debate with someone he doesn't know and who does not have any direct influence in musical matters in the Church, over these or other documents. If you knew him in person he might have some fun and debate with you but I doubt you would ever reach a conclusion. He does more productive things with his time.)[/quote]

Are you saying that people who come here and catechize are wasting their time? I strongly suggest that you recant this, you are going to offend many more people than just me.....You are sitting here debating with me....and last time I checked, you don't know me.....however, I look at this site as a means of projecting the knowledge that I have of the Church and as an apologetics tool. I am sure that many more people who come here feel the same way.

[quote]Our pastor, a canon lawyer, is in charge of all things in the parish. Michael is under our pastor.[/quote]

What does Canon Law have to do with Liturgical sensiblities? They are mutually exclusive, ON PURPOSE. There is Canon Law and Liturgical Law. I would hope, though, that someone with his advanced degrees would support the Liturgical Law.

[quote]Some guy named Michael is a person who is under the direction of a canon lawyer and also studied Liturgy and Ceremonies in school. Given the amount of schooling he has received in liturgical music, your dismissal of him is a bit quick. You do not know him, therefore you do not trust his opinion.[/quote]

That is great for Michael. Then he and I have the same degrees. Whoo Hoo. And my dismissal of him is based upon your caracature of him. Based upon your view of him, he doesn't follow the documentation of the Church. Any Liturgist worth his salt would recognize Tra Le Sollectudini, etc. and follow their directives.

I don't know him, but I also don't know his opinion, unless you are giving it for him in an authentic manner, then yes, I don't trust him.

Why don't you show me where my defense of right thinking of the Liturgy fails and I will relent. Until then, I will stand by the teachings of the Church and I will stand by the posts that I have made.

[quote]How does that make me fortunate?[/quote]

Because regardless of what you have been exposed to, the teachings and documentation of the Church have not changed and are very clear.

[scardella]

I've split up Cam's statements that I'd like to reply to into numbers for easy rebuttals.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093105' date='Oct 16 2006, 03:00 PM']
1. The Church is clear, despite what Scardella and Michael would like to think.

2. Also age of the document doesn't have one thing to do with the validity and binding of said document. That is a mistake to assume that because a Council took place ALL the other documentation on the subject is now moot.

3. I have simply given what the Church teaches then I have defended them. I don't want to be a lawyer.
But is mine to judge and it offended me. I spent years living with one of the WORLD'S foremost musicologists and I formally studied the Liturgy and Ceremonies while in school. That is where my viewpoint comes from. Who are you to simply dismiss it based on some guy named Michael.

4. Not that were intended for the Mass.....Sorry, but his music for guitar was secular, not Sacred.

5. Where does any document say anything about anything being ultimately up to the musical director?

6. Shouldn't the Pope/Bishops/Priests be making all of the Liturgical decisions?

7. Show me where there is a document that abbrogates the documentation previous to Vatican Council II? Also, there was a lot written before the Council, so do we simply pick and choose what is allowable and what is not? Since Tra Le Sollectudini is not accpetable any longer, how about Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus? Is that still acceptable? Or can we abandon that one too? Your post makes no sense and doesn't rebut my position at all.....

8. Fortunately for you the Church doesn't see it that way......perhaps more catechesis is needed.
[/quote]

1. No, it is not. In terms of instrumentation, it consistently uses vague terminology, highly open to interpretation. I have read "suitable for sacred use" and "noisy or raucous" used as catch-alls in both directions.

2. When said document concerns matters of discipline, then, yes, age DOES matter. Liturgy has parts that are matters of discipline (eg altar servers' genders) and otherwise (the Consecration).

3. I respect that you have a strong background in liturgy, but that doesn't make your interpretation of it perfect.

4. It's nowhere specifically prohibited, and the current GIRM allows for stringed instruments.

5. It's the only conclusion that I could come to, based upon the vague terminology provided by the documents you cited and advice by a number of priests.

6. They do, based on Scripture and Tradition, via the Magisterium's rules and guidelines and pastoral need.

7. Considering the fact that massive changes were made to the norms for liturgies, it's quite appropriate to question the validity of previous statements on liturgy that pertain to discipline. I don't see how instrumentation could possibly be otherwise, considering how tied it is to culture.

8. You've shown me the sources, shouldn't that be enough?

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' post='1093274' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
I've split up Cam's statements that I'd like to reply to into numbers for easy rebuttals.
[quote]. The Church is clear, despite what Scardella and Michael would like to think.

2. Also age of the document doesn't have one thing to do with the validity and binding of said document. That is a mistake to assume that because a Council took place ALL the other documentation on the subject is now moot.

3. I have simply given what the Church teaches then I have defended them. I don't want to be a lawyer.
But is mine to judge and it offended me. I spent years living with one of the WORLD'S foremost musicologists and I formally studied the Liturgy and Ceremonies while in school. That is where my viewpoint comes from. Who are you to simply dismiss it based on some guy named Michael.

4. Not that were intended for the Mass.....Sorry, but his music for guitar was secular, not Sacred.

5. Where does any document say anything about anything being ultimately up to the musical director?

6. Shouldn't the Pope/Bishops/Priests be making all of the Liturgical decisions?

7. Show me where there is a document that abbrogates the documentation previous to Vatican Council II? Also, there was a lot written before the Council, so do we simply pick and choose what is allowable and what is not? Since Tra Le Sollectudini is not accpetable any longer, how about Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus? Is that still acceptable? Or can we abandon that one too? Your post makes no sense and doesn't rebut my position at all.....

8. Fortunately for you the Church doesn't see it that way......perhaps more catechesis is needed.[/quote]

1. No, it is not. In terms of instrumentation, it consistently uses vague terminology, highly open to interpretation. I have read "suitable for sacred use" and "noisy or raucous" used as catch-alls in both directions.

2. When said document concerns matters of discipline, then, yes, age DOES matter. Liturgy has parts that are matters of discipline (eg altar servers' genders) and otherwise (the Consecration).

3. I respect that you have a strong background in liturgy, but that doesn't make your interpretation of it perfect.

4. It's nowhere specifically prohibited, and the current GIRM allows for stringed instruments.

5. It's the only conclusion that I could come to, based upon the vague terminology provided by the documents you cited and advice by a number of priests.

6. They do, based on Scripture and Tradition, via the Magisterium's rules and guidelines and pastoral need.

7. Considering the fact that massive changes were made to the norms for liturgies, it's quite appropriate to question the validity of previous statements on liturgy that pertain to discipline. I don't see how instrumentation could possibly be otherwise, considering how tied it is to culture.

8. You've shown me the sources, shouldn't that be enough?
[/quote]

First of all, the statements are incomplete. So, let's be perfectly clear about that from the get go. Secondly, you are assuming a bunch of stuff that you can't defend. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove the validity of these documents, but rather it is upon you to disprove them....That being said......

1. The terms in question are CLEARLY DEFINED. How much more clearly do they need to be stated? Smaller stringed instruments that can be played with a bow. Pianos, drums, bells and the like. Bands. Woodwind instruments. These are all pretty specific terms.....unless you like making things vague when they really are not.

2. Age does not matter when the document has not been abbrogated. Show me where these documents have been abbrogated and I will cede the point. (psstt...they have not been.)

3. I have never claimed to be perfect, but I can read. I understand the documents, precisely because I have been educated formally in them.

4. When something is not defined, the Church assumes that documentation from the past will suffice in the documentation. Hello, that is the definition.....

5. Then your conclusion is flawed, because it is not properly formed, based upon the totality of the documents. When you can show where the documentation is not clear and the instruments are not defined, then it would be accpetable to hold that opinion.

6. The Pope/Bishops/Priests relegate more often than not to MCs and Liturgists. I know, I was/am one. The big difference is that I consult and if need be correct the pastor on the matter of Liturgy.

7. There were not MASSIVE changes. Go back and read. There were changes yes, but the Mass if done properly is not all that different. It is all the "personalism" and abuse that has been injected that has caused Mass to change it's outward form so radically. That is a strawman.

8. Yes, the sources are enough. That is why I continue to use them and I have not changed my position. I am totally consistent with the position that I first posited.

[Resurrexi]

Cam, could you requote the documents please, I'm just wondering what they say.