Concerning Instruments at Mass - Part II

[Cam42]

If you want to continue the personal attacks PM me. I don't think that it is appropriate for the board.

More support for my position though is this:

[quote name='A Chronicle of Reform'][b]In asking the question why, musically speaking, the reforms of the council were not a success, one must always arrive at the same answer: the wishes of the council fathers were not carried out. The council documents are clear; the instructions that followed are detailed and understandable; the official liturgical books leave no doubt about their use. But why have they not been put into effect in the United States?[/b] An important reason lies in the issuing of adocument by the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, prepared by the Music Advisory Board and entitled “The Place of Music in Eucharistic Celebrations.” [b]While claiming to be an American interpretation of the Roman instruction, Musicam sacram, this statement is based on principles quite contrary to the expression of liturgical theology continuing though the past one hundred years. It is confused and even erroneous in doctrinal, musical and legal aspects. One wonders why the Roman instruction was not allowed to stand on its own and why an American statement
was necessary at all, unless perhaps to prevent the Roman directions from becoming known and implemented in the United States.[/b][/quote]

That is a profound thought by Mons. Schuler.

[quote name='CR']But “The Place of Music in Eucharistic Celebrations” is not confused only in doctrinal matters. It fails in musical questions to conform to directives from the Holy See. Musicam sacram says: “The distinction between solemn, sung and read Mass, sanctioned by the instruction of 1958, is to be retained.[/quote]

Who can tell the difference these days?

[quote name='CR']One may ask how such a body as the Music Advisory Board could impose its opinions on the musicians and clergy of the United States. What was their legal foundation? The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy says: “It is desirable that the competent ecclesiastical authority, mentioned in article 22, set up a liturgical commission, to be assisted by experts in liturgical sciences, sacred music, art and pastoral practice.” Advisory boards were set up in other areas besides music. Their capacity was seen as exclusively advisory to the Bishops’ Committee on the
Liturgy.[/quote]

Always back to Artcile 22 of Sacrosanctum Coniclium.....I wonder if that has a lot to do with the abuses and the widespread ignoring of that article of the document.

[quote name='CR'][b]The question is obviously just what authoritative value does this document possess, and therefore, what respect and even obedience does it demand? Can it be construed as the basis for local diocesan legislation on musical matters, as has in fact so often been done?

[u]The answer must be that it has no legal binding force, since it is merely the opinion of a board that is only advisory to a committee that in itself has no legislative authority but is constituted to report to the full body that empowered it, an act that doubtfully was ever done at all.[/u][/b] [u]In addition, when the opinions of an advisory board are found to be in contradiction to authoritative Roman instructions, then they clearly must be rejected. But, in fact, they were not, and “The Place of Music in Eucharistic Celebrations” became the basis for, great activity in most dioceses where many musicians in good faith accepted the, propaganda delivered to them by Universa Laus, acting through the Music Advisory Board.[/u][/quote]

And here we begin to see the reality of what has become the situation we are in today.

[franciscanheart]

Sorry, red.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1094147' date='Oct 17 2006, 04:35 PM']
alrighty everyone - take a deep breath and chill out. let's move past the accusations and onto the actual topic, okay? i'd hate to edit and moderate this topic
[/quote]

I totally agree. Hence the stuff above this.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1094158' date='Oct 17 2006, 03:44 PM']
I totally agree. Hence the stuff above this.
[/quote]
Because you are so without fault, right? You didn't say anything or keep it going at all. Please.


Sorry. I'm done. Goodbye.

[Cam42]

[quote name='A Chronicle of Reform'][b]With the document now enjoying an “official” position, taken by some to be even legislative and authoritative and equal if not surpassing Roman legislation, the disintegration of church music across the country began in earnest. “Beat” music, so called folk-music, combos, jazz and rock groups, country Western and ballads became the accepted music for parish liturgies, weddings, graduations and even ordination.[/b] The Catholic and the secular press have recorded the aberrations. With the introduction of profane and trivial compositions and performances, good music became ever more disused, as choirs were disbanded and even prohibited. Seminaries, novitiates and colleges led the way, and little official effort was expanded to curtail it. [b]In some dioceses the bishops did speak up forcefully against abuses.[/b] Writers in Catholic periodicals generally backed the revolution, but others expressed caution and concern. As music for “special groups,” originally intended for college and high school students, came to mean music for elementary pupils too, so that they could participate more fully, some liturgists promoted the writing of music by grade school children for performance at their Masses. [u]“Living Worship,” a publication of the Liturgical Conference, assured church musicians that the piano had at least four advantages over the organ as a liturgical instrument, and that ukeleles are amazingly simple for young children to learn to play. In a more learned idiom, “Worship” published an explanation of the entire reform: “The hootenanny Mass can give explicit eucharistic and christological specification to youth’s intense involvement in the movements for racial justice, for control of nuclear weapons, for the recognition of personal dignity.[/u][/quote]

[Lil Red]

cam, could you [b]bold[/b] the pertinent parts within the documents you are quoting? sometimes the text within the quotes i cannot read it as well as i should be able to.

[Cam42]

[quote name='A Chronicle of Reform']The seventies proved to be the decade of the piccolomnini, the little men. [b]Church music became the domain of the “do-it-yourself’ composer and performer.[/b] [u]In the name of actuosa participatio, guitar players, various combos, folk-singers and even grade school children undertook to write and perform music for church, providing both texts and notes. That such ineptitude and ignorance, albeit sincere, could have taken hold of a serious and sacred sector of life, the worship of God, can only be explained by reference to the direction given from the central authority in the country.[/u] [b]The phenomenon was witnessed in all parts of the country; it came from a common source. That source was the Music Advisory Board of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy.[/b] The group acted chiefly through the documents issued in its name: “The Place of Music in Eucharistic Celebrations;” and “Music in Catholic Worship,” which
was released in 1972.

[b]On September 5, 1970, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship published its third instruction on the orderly implementation of the constitution on the sacred liturgy of the Second Vatican Council. Entitled Liturgicae instaurationes, it put an end to experimentation in liturgical matters and called for the careful fulfillment of the instructions given by the council and the curial documents that followed. The decrees contained in Musicam sacram of 1967 are repeated, and abuses are ordered to be eliminated.[/b] [u]Only a passing reference to this significant document from Rome occurs in “Music in Catholic Worship.” Just as with Musicam sacram, this Roman instruction was ignored in the United States, and the abuses continued to grow.[/u] [b][u]There is little wonder that the laity objected to many innovations made in the name of the council and the reform, because their very right to have the liturgical reform carried out properly and orderly was being violated.[/u][/b] [b]The instruction of 1972 clearly stated that “the priest should keep in mind that, by imposing his own personal restoration of sacred rites, he is offending the rights of the faithful and is introducing individualism and idiosyncrasy into celebrations which belong to the whole Church.[/b][/quote]

It is amazing to see the move the "Liturgists" had made. And why do I post this stuff? Because it speaks directly to the mentality of liturgists and the actions and reasoning that they are taking in not only using guitars and other profane instrumentation, but also how those who are very well meaning are taught incorrectly. BTW, I was one of those taught incorrectly. It was in figuring out that something just wasn't right, that I started this journey that has lead me to the understanding and right thinking that I have today.

Ask hot stuff, he was there when this shift took place in me. It has cost me dearly in several aspects of what could be in my Catholic life, but I am willing to take the loss in order to stand for what is right.

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1094174' date='Oct 17 2006, 04:53 PM']
cam, could you [b]bold[/b] the pertinent parts within the documents you are quoting? sometimes the text within the quotes i cannot read it as well as i should be able to.
[/quote]

The whole quote is pertinent. The paper that I am quoting from is 47 pages long.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1094160' date='Oct 17 2006, 04:45 PM']
Because you are so without fault, right? You didn't say anything or keep it going at all. Please.
Sorry. I'm done. Goodbye.
[/quote]

No, I haven't said that I am not without fault. I asked you to take it to PM, because it is not appropriate to keep this on the board, I am more than willing to continue that aspect of the conversation going with you, just not in public.

[Cam42]

[quote name='A Chronicle of Reform'][b]Certain distinctions must be learned in this country about music for worship. They are clearly indicated in the documents.[/b] [u]First, the difference between music intended as liturgical music and that intended as religious music must be established. When composing for the very words of the Mass or the hours, one is creating music which is itself pars integrans, an integral part of the liturgy itself. Whether the texts are Latin or the vernacular, the music must always be in a sacred style and truly and seriously artistic, worthy of the exalted purpose for which it is intended.[/u] It can, indeed, be simple and within the scope of lesser performers, but it must always be holy and of good form. The council itself calls for just that, both in Latin and in the vernacular tongues. The treasures of the past will supply the bulk of such repertory for many years to come, but new composition must surely be encouraged and used.

[b]Secondly, religious music, as distinguished from liturgical music, truly has a place both within the liturgy and in paraliturgical and extra-liturgical services, as well as in gatherings apart from formal worship.[/b] Through the centuries the Church has encouraged such pious activity. The medieval world was filled with compositions in both Latin and the vernacular that were religious and prayerful. [u]Some, indeed, found their way into the liturgy as hymns and sequences. Others remained always as non-liturgical compositions. We can further distinguish within this religious music pieces that might well be used at Masses in which the liturgical texts themselves are not sung. Hymns constitute the largest body of such music. They must, of course, have sacred texts and they must be composed according to the proper rules of hymn-writing. Since by their very nature they fall within the capabilities of the entire congregation, they are most useful for the promotion of actuosa participatio populi.[/u] A great body of such music exists, especially from the 16th century, but 19th century hymns and some from our own time may likewise be suitably employed.

[b]Other religious music, especially what is known today as folk songs, or pieces in ballad style, music reminiscent of country or western songs but set to texts of a religious nature, has no place in services within the church, either liturgical or non-liturgical.[/b] The texts are not taken from the sacred scriptures or from liturgical books as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy orders. [u]The music is not in a serious artistic style. Rather these pieces, good in themselves, are best used in gatherings outside the church, meetings of youth groups, excellent for singing as part of entertainment.[/u]

[b]There are also those great religious works, such as oratorios and cantatas, written on texts from the Bible or on sacred poems, set with melodies of great beauty and harmony of great value, some with orchestration and both choral and solo sections. Again, these are not intended for liturgical use, but rather for occasions when performances of this genre of religious music can bring the minds and hearts of the audiences to the contemplation of holy things.[/b]

In a word, as there exist both secular and sacred compositions, so within the category of sacred one must further distinguish between liturgical and religious works. [b]And often one must further refine the distinction “religious” by determining what is suitable for use within the house of God and what belongs in activity that is good and worthwhile in itself, but not directly a part of God’s worship. It is in the confusion of these forms and styles that many of today’s problems in church music in the United States lie.[/b] [u][b]Most contemporary guitar ensembles, campus ministry combos, folk-singers and religious ballad singers, often very skilled and professional, are not aware of the distinction in forms that must determine the use of all religious music.[/u][/b]

[b][u]Frequently criticism is misunderstood when objection is made to the kind of religious music employed in some liturgical services. Ignorance of what the Church wishes for the liturgy and what the Church approves for non-liturgical services, and what it admits and even blesses for activities outside the house of God is widespread.[/b][/u][/quote]

This is very telling as well.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1094180' date='Oct 17 2006, 02:59 PM']The whole quote is pertinent. The paper that I am quoting from is 47 pages long.[/quote]thanks

[scardella]

I have one question: is the GIRM a binding document?

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' post='1094338' date='Oct 17 2006, 06:57 PM']
I have one question: is the GIRM a binding document?
[/quote]

Yes, why? As if I need to ask.....

[scardella]

[quote name='GIRM 394']...provided they are truly apt for sacred use [b]or can be rendered apt.[/b][/quote]

This seems to say that some instruments may be used despite not having been rendered apt. IE If an instrument CAN (is able to) be rendered apt in the future, then it has not presently been rendered apt. Is this a plausible conclusion?

Edited October 18, 2006 by scardella

[zunshynn]

Regardless of what anyone's assuming about everyone else, that's really not the point of any of this. The point is we can not assume that a document becomes obsolete because "the times changed" . The Church has to be the one that says this has changed, and it has not, it would seem by the lack of any documentation suggesting that it has.

The Vatican II documents seem to reaffirm the older documents, JP2 clearly still held Pius X's decrees on the liturgy in esteem... so it doesn't matter what every one does or what music is popular. Liturgical music has never been about what is in style... it essentially needs to be beyond that.

Show some real documentation that it's changed already! What's so difficult about that? If there isn't any, we have to assume that the so-called "vague" documentation by more recent popes and Vatican II and the Congregation of Divine Worship are simply reaffirmation then of what was already in place and not changing anything. It doesn't make sense to suggest that solid documentation of the past is superceded by "vagueness" of later documents or the lack of later documents. They don't have to be explicit because they ALREADY WERE explicit.

Edited October 18, 2006 by zunshynn

[kateri05]

Amen zunzhynn!

[zunshynn]

[quote name='scardella' post='1094543' date='Oct 17 2006, 10:02 PM']
This seems to say that some instruments may be used despite not having been rendered apt. IE If an instrument CAN (is able to) be rendered apt in the future, then it has not presently been rendered apt. Is this a plausible conclusion?
[/quote]

I suppose that could be a valid interpretation, except you can't assume that something would be rendered apt in the future when it was explicitly rendered inappropriate in the past... in that case it would only logically have to be explicitly changed. So for example... Tra Le Solectudini (sp?) clearly said that the piano was forbidden. We cannot assume then, that it would be rendered apt nowadays unless the Church was as explicit in changing that as it was when it put it in place in the first place. And if piano is inappropriate, then of course guitars and drums would be.

To give an example of what I mean about the Church having to be as explicit lifting a ban as it was when they placed the ban: Cremation used to be forbidden also, because in the past, it was appropriate because it was considered a denial of the resurrection. Fine... the Church has the right to make such rules. And of course, even when the mentality about cremation changed, people still had to wait for the Church to officially and explicitly lift the ban, which it was, when they deemed that it would no longer be scandalous.

To do so before, on ones own judgement, that "well, that's just archaic or there's nothing explicit said about it recently so I'll assume it doesn't matter anymore", would be wrong by virtue of disobedience. It's fine if you think the Church should update the rules on liturgical music. But you can't assume that it has... you have to wait for the Church to make that change as clearly as they decreed otherwise in the past.

And anyway... I really, IMHO, think its so unfortunate that everybody's so insistent on making everything "up to date" that you're ultimately robbing Catholics... the Harry and Mary in the pew... of the beautiful treasury of music in the Church's history... of its timelessness and mystery. I love guitars and piano and drums and contemporary music... but isn't Mass entering out of time into the sacrifice of Calvary? Shouldn't the music reflect that? Why should it be like what we hear everywhere else?

Edited October 18, 2006 by zunshynn

[franciscanheart]

I said I would. Sheesh. Pushy, pushy. :


Seriously though... I am all for organ and chant in our Masses and Traditional (old school) hymns. However, I still don't accept that pianos are absolutely forbidden.


BTW - What would be the ruling on harpsichords? Trumpets? French horns?

I've seen already that stringed instruments played with a bow are 'okay'. But what about these others? I know we discussed tympanies. I'm trying to remember which other instruments I wanted to ask about - for those of you that are so dead set on the old documents.

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1094577' date='Oct 17 2006, 11:54 PM']
I suppose that could be a valid interpretation, except you can't assume that something would be rendered apt in the future when it was explicitly rendered inappropriate in the past... in that case it would only logically have to be explicitly changed. So for example... Tra Le Solectudini (sp?) clearly said that the piano was forbidden. We cannot assume then, that it would be rendered apt nowadays unless the Church was as explicit in changing that as it was when it put it in place in the first place. And if piano is inappropriate, then of course guitars and drums would be.

To give an example of what I mean about the Church having to be as explicit lifting a ban as it was when they placed the ban: Cremation used to be forbidden also, because in the past, it was appropriate because it was considered a denial of the resurrection. Fine... the Church has the right to make such rules. And of course, even when the mentality about cremation changed, people still had to wait for the Church to officially and explicitly lift the ban, which it was, when they deemed that it would no longer be scandalous.

To do so before, on ones own judgement, that "well, that's just archaic or there's nothing explicit said about it recently so I'll assume it doesn't matter anymore", would be wrong by virtue of disobedience. It's fine if you think the Church should update the rules on liturgical music. But you can't assume that it has... you have to wait for the Church to make that change as clearly as they decreed otherwise in the past.

And anyway... I really, IMHO, think its so unfortunate that everybody's so insistent on making everything "up to date" that you're ultimately robbing Catholics... the Harry and Mary in the pew... of the beautiful treasury of music in the Church's history... of its timelessness and mystery. I love guitars and piano and drums and contemporary music... but isn't Mass entering out of time into the sacrifice of Calvary? Shouldn't the music reflect that? Why should it be like what we hear everywhere else?
[/quote]
Now wait a second... you're straying from what Cam said. Maybe you should go back and look at it again so you're still saying what he is. He said guitars aren't preferred but they are allowable. So you're not in line with what he's saying on that. Drums - drum kits, right? I asked about the tympanies before so this would be me asking again.

Here's another something: Are we talking about music just in the US? Wouldn't some ancient instruments of Africa be apt for worship there? Just wondering...

No one is insisting on making everything 'up to date', that I can see. I certainly am not. I'm not asking for Daniel Powter or Martina McBride. I'm not even asking that we get a more 'contemporary' sound. I'm still asking for different styles of music, music for worship, but while making use of all of these beautiful instruments.

Was it Cam or Michael that was talking about the flute? I think it was Michael. Anyway, he said something about how the flute can carry the melody and so it would be more suitable for worship or something like that...

Really, I just need time. I'm not unwilling to present my side of the thinking here. I just need time.

And I don't see why anyone should be opposed to questioning. How are we to grow if we are not to question? A certain amount of questioning can be and IS healthy. Questioning, however, must be open to an answer that was not expected or wanted. And I'm open to that.

I'm not against the idea of having pianos removed. I said I liked chant and the organ, remember? However, I'm not convinced that we're being presented with the MOST accurate answer.

I respect that Cam studied this in a higher level school. However, I do not believe that simply because he has the degree means that he will be right all the time. No one is perfect.

I think that's all I want to say...