Sacred Music Vs. Secular Music In The Mass

[MithLuin]

Certainly, if you don't want to use guitar, piano or drums at mass, then playing 'Avvesome God' isn't going to work so well....since that's the three instruments in the original recording. It does meet the 'we/our/us' criteria, though . Also, the content is Biblical, so it's linked to early part of Genesis with the Creation and Fall, as well as references to Sodom and Gomorrah and Jesus' death on the cross. So, there are times when that would be appropriate. Though of course Rich Mullins himself said he wanted to do something a bit more Biblically based when he wrote 'My Deliverer'. So...no, the song wasn't written to be performed at mass, and therefore likely isn't entirely appropriate for this purpose. Adapting it to be played on an organ could happen, but why bother?

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxZYTzBfgk0[/media]

(A live recording in a concert setting can be found here: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oep3Tx7X3BQ[/url] )


I suppose the advent of the piano is irrevocably linked with jazz music and places of ill repute. It's a shame, because some beautiful music can be produced by pianos. Finding a skilled piano player and a working piano is generally a bit easier than finding a skilled organ player and a working organ. Not that they don't exist...but really, I can understand why the Vatican documents are all about giving the organ 'pride of place' without saying, 'if you don't have an organ, you can't have instruments.' It's easy to foresee circumstances where an organ would not be available, but other appropriate instruments could be used.


Ideally, the mass should contain the most beautiful and appropriate sacred music that the congregation is able to participate in. Training the congregation is preferable to dumbing-down the music selections, but you do have to start somewhere. And choosing music that no one will sing would rather defeat the purpose of having music at mass. While you're allowed to have a choir, Vatican II was very explicit that the congregation needed to be singing and responding, not remaining silent.



But I'm fine with leaving the Praise and Worship music for venues outside of mass. Like sitting around with a group of friends and a guitar and singing your heart out for God. Or at Eucharistic Adoration. In fact...I think I'll sing me some tonight

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxbN1c4xG-M[/media]

[Seven77]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1308431995' post='2255706']
[/quote]

+100

[Cam42]

There is a key component that everyone is missing....

You're all arguing apples and oranges...

Apples: Hymns...

Oranges: what the Church expects from music in the Mass.

Hymnody is not a Catholic principle and if you look to the teaching of the Church, the Mass is designed to be sung as a whole.

I. Introit
II. Kyrie
III. Gloria
IV. Gradual/Tract
V. Creed
VI. Offertory
VII. Agnus Dei
VIII. Communion

There is no hymody included in what is supposed to be sung at Mass.

Hymns were introduced for LOW MASSES ONLY during the 1950s so that people wouldn't sit idle. But this wording shows that it wasn't the Pope who wrote this, because it is contradictory to all of his other documents. It was also written very close to the time of his death. The part I am speaking of smacks of Bugnini's language....but even Bugnini wouldn't insert hymns (at that point) into Sunday Sung Masses. Also, the application was very, very specific.

As it is, you're all arguing that hymns are proper to the Mass. They are not. This assumption was carried over through Vatican Council II. Look to the language of the Council...they assumed Gregorian Chant. They assumed the propers to be sung. There was no real assumption for hymnody.

If you want to argue that hymns have a place, you first have to prove that hymns have a place in the Catholic Liturgy. They do not. Hymns are para liturgical. The hymns that are traditionally Catholic were sung at services which were not liturgical.

This is why the instruments are so vital. Only those instruments which are apt for the specific parts of the Mass above are to be used...The organ is to be held in high esteem, but the human voice is most proper.

If you disagree...prove it. If you agree...start promoting this in your parishes...

[MithLuin]

Well, actually, my example earlier in the thread was of a psalm, which is of course a part of the mass. But you can still have the discussion. For instance....African Sanctus:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYmB28PsAdo&feature=fvwrel[/media]

It's not just a question of setting the parts of the mass to music. ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvrI7vhAt-w]HERE[/url] is an interview with the composer of the above.)

Edited June 19, 2011 by MithLuin

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308442570' post='2255759']
Hymnody is not a Catholic principle and if you look to the teaching of the Church, the Mass is designed to be sung as a whole.
[/quote]
What follows is one simple question that you need not read any meaning into, and need only answer with a yes or no question.
Do you agree with this statement: "The Mass is static and has not (and should not have changed) since the founding of the Church," ?

Edited June 19, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS

[Cam42]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308451347' post='2255828']
What follows is one simple question that you need not read any meaning into, and need only answer with a yes or no question.
Do you agree with this statement: "The Mass is static and has not (and should not have changed) since the founding of the Church," ?
[/quote]


That is not a fair answer, because development of the Mass can invlove the authentic development of the Mass. To include hymnody in the way that it has been included is not consistent with the earliest forms, as well as what the Church teaches.

So, to answer your question, No the Mass is not static. BUT, the musical development of the Mass since the late 1950s has not been authentic. The Church does not develop based upon novelty and innovation. It never has and it never will, authentically.

To include hymns as the only form of song in the Mass is not Catholic. It was not an accepted form of musical worship until 1958 and even then it was very restricted. And it was NEVER to be part of the Sung Mass (High Mass). Yet after Vatican Council II, it became the norm, not because of Vatican Council II, but in spite of it. There is no document which contradicts this...The fact that every Mass became a de facto low Mass was not envisioned by the Council Fathers this is borne out in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

What was done after the Council with regard to the Mass was terrible. I mean awful. It was taken in a direction which it was never intended to go. This starts with the music and it finishes with the rubrics. It encompasses everything in between.

The Church is not based upon innovation. The Church is based upon authentic development. What Bugnini and his Consilium did was not development, it was innovation. Logic tells us that it is an invalid principle. Since the Church is perfect, she cannot be invalid. The Mass itself is not invalid, but the Mass has undergone abuses to it which have lead to the crisis we have now. This is a big part of the hermeneutic of discontinuity that Benedict has been talking about. Had everything been adhered to according to the Council Fathers, I don't believe this conversation would be necessary, but the reality is this....

Hymnody has no place in the Mass. It is para-liturgical. The Mass is to be sung in the manner I presented above. This is what the Church has taught since her inception, up to and including Vatican Council II. Yet since the Consilium that which is para-liturgical has become the normative action, both in theory and in practice, against the wishes of the Council Fathers.

The answer in this instance is not a simple yes or no.

[Cam42]

With regard to hymnody:

[quote]19. Hymns may be freely used in private devotions. But in liturgical ceremonies the principles laid down in paragraphs 13-15 should be strictly observed.

[/quote]

[quote]13. a) Latin is the language of liturgical ceremonies; however, the liturgical books mentioned above, if they have been approved for general use or for a particular place or community, may make use of another language for certain liturgical ceremonies, and in such cases, this will be explicitly stated. Any exceptions to the general rule of Latin will be mentioned later in this Instruction.

b) Special permission is needed for the use of the vernacular which is a word-for-word translation in the celebration of sung liturgical ceremonies (Motu proprio [i]Inter sollicitudines[/i] AAS 36 [1903-1904] 334; Decr. auth. S.R.C. 4121).

c) Individual exceptions to the exclusive use of Latin in liturgical ceremonies which have already been granted by the Holy See still remain in effect. These permissions are not to be modified in their meaning nor extended to other regions without authorization from the Holy See.

d) In private devotions any language more suited to the faithful may be used.

14. a) In sung Masses only Latin is to be used. This applies not only to the celebrant, and his ministers, but also to the choir or congregation.

"However, popular vernacular hymns may be sung at the solemn Eucharistic Sacrifice (sung Masses), after the liturgical texts have been sung in Latin, in those places where such a centenary or immemorial custom has obtained. Local ordinaries may permit the continuation of this custom 'if they judge that it cannot prudently be discontinued because of the circumstances of the locality or the people' (cf. canon 5)" ([i]Musicæ sacræ disciplina[/i]: AAS 48 [1956] 16-17).

b) At low Mass the faithful who participate directly in the liturgical ceremonies with the celebrant by reciting aloud the parts of the Mass which belong to them must, along with the priest and his server, use Latin exclusively.

But if, in addition to this direct participation in the liturgy, the faithful wish to add some prayers or popular hymns, according to local custom, these may be recited or sung in the vernacular.

c) It is strictly forbidden for the faithful in unison or for a commentator to recite aloud with the priest the parts of the Proper, Ordinary, and canon of the Mass. This prohibition extends to both Latin, and a vernacular word-for-word translation. Exceptions will be enumerated in paragraph 31.

However, it is desirable that a lector read the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular for the benefit of the faithful at low Masses on Sundays and feast days.

Between the Consecration, and the [i]Pater noster[/i] a holy silence is fitting.


[b]Sacred Processions[/b]
15. In sacred processions conducted according to the liturgical books, only the language prescribed or permitted by these books should be used. In other processions, held as private devotions, the language more suited to the faithful may be used.

[/quote]

[quote]20. Religious music should be entirely excluded from all liturgical functions; however, such music may be used in private devotions. With regard to concerts in church, the principles stated below in paragraphs 54, and 55 are to be observed.

[/quote]

[quote]54. The type of music which inspires its hearers with religious sentiments, and even devotion, and yet, because of its special character cannot be used in liturgical functions, is nevertheless worthy of high esteem, and ought to be cultivated in its proper time. This music justly merits, therefore, the title "religious music".

55. The proper places for the performance of such music are concert halls, theaters, or auditoriums, but not the church, which is consecrated to the worship of God.

However, if none of these places are available, and the local Ordinary judges that a concert of religious music might be advantageous for the spiritual welfare of the faithful, he may permit a concert of this kind to be held in a church, provided the following provisions are observed:

a) The local Ordinary must give his permission for each concert in writing.

b) Requests for such permissions must also be in writing, stating the date of the concert, the compositions to be performed, the names of the directors (organist, and choral director), and the performers.

c) The local Ordinary is not to give this permission without first consulting the diocesan commission of sacred music, and perhaps other authorities upon whose judgment he may rely, and then only if he knows that the music is not only outstanding for its true artistic value, but also for its sincere Christian spirit; he must also be assured that the performers possess the qualities to be mentioned below in paragraphs 97, and 98.

d) Before the concert, the Blessed Sacrament should be removed from the church, and reserved in one of the chapels, or even in the sacristy, is a respectful way. If this cannot be done, the audience should be told that the Blessed Sacrament is present in the church, and the pastor should see to it that there is no danger of irreverence.

e) The main body of the church is not to be used for selling admission tickets or distributing programs of the concert.

f) The musicians, singers, and audience should conduct themselves, and dress in a manner befitting the seriousness, and holiness of the sacred edifice in which they are present.

g) If circumstances permit, the concert should be concluded by some private devotion, or better still, with benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. In this way the devotion, and edification of the faithful, which was the purpose of the concert, will be crowned by a religious service.

[/quote]

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

So, according to the Church, unless it is 2058, which is the centenary of the document and establishes immemorial custom....the singing of vernacular hymns after the singing of Latin hymns is forbidden at sung Masses. It can be done in a low Mass, but even then it is restrictive and requires permissions.

As we can see by this document, there was never really any desire to have hymns at Mass. It was allowed, but not promoted, based upon the language used. We should take the time to understasnd that Sacred Music isn't popular hymns nor is it secular composition. The music of the Mass is specific and should be treated as such.

[Vincent Vega]

Thanks for your responses.

[Noel's angel]

You can't really lump guitar alongside piano and drums, since the guitar as not been banned from use in Mass, whereas the other two instruments have: 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.' (Tra le Sollecitudini). However, I'm sure some people will take the phrase 'and the like' to include guitars.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Noel's angel' timestamp='1308497220' post='2255937']
You can't really lump guitar alongside piano and drums, since the guitar as not been banned from use in Mass, whereas the other two instruments have: 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.' (Tra le Sollecitudini). However, I'm sure some people will take the phrase 'and the like' to include guitars.
[/quote]
More important than quibbling about wording (which always leaves room for loopholes) is to look at those documents as a whole. We should see what they support and what they do not, and apply those principles. Doing so, there's no question that guitars and pianos both are not appropriate in the Latin liturgy.

[Noel's angel]

Why not come out and say it then? If they can name other instruments, why not name the guitar also? (Again, I reiterate that I'm 'anti guitar'.)

[Cam42]

[quote name='Noel's angel' timestamp='1308498332' post='2255941']
Why not come out and say it then? If they can name other instruments, why not name the guitar also? (Again, I reiterate that I'm 'anti guitar'.)
[/quote]


Because, it's development was never intended to be used in the sacred liturgies, so by common estimation, it is not apt for use in the liturgy. Also, because it was never developed to be an instrument to play sacred music, it should not be employed for that end. To do so is an innovation and not proper development.

If the guitar were to be included among stringed instruments which are allowed, there would have been classical pieces for the sacred liturgies which included the guitar. The simple fact is that it did not. So, that is how I can make the assertation the guitar was never intended to be an apt instrument for use in the Mass. Let's not try to assume that "classical" guitar is the same as sacred music. They are two entirely different modes of musicality. Mozart, Beethoven, and the other greats wrote specific music for the sacred liturgies and there is no assumption of guitar in those works. They also wrote classical secular music which did include precursors for the guitar, but those instruments were left out, while other stringed instruments, specifically those played with a bow were included. The development of sacred music determined that those instruments were apt and acceptable.

Since the Italians were promoters of the precursor to the modern guitar, it would seem that if they were to be rendered apt, they would have been included in the sacred liturgies, but alas, they are not. They remain silent. And so should the guitar.

One of the insteresting things about Tra le....

It specifically forbids bands. What are the defining instruments of a band. Guitars, drums, keyboards, and others...so the guitar was most probably assumed to be part of that. If you want to really see what has been said on this issue, take a look [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=58703&st=0"]HERE[/url] and [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=57851&hl=concerning+instruments"]HERE[/url] and [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=53270&hl=music"]HERE[/url] and [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=50426&hl=guitars"]HERE[/url]; this is not a new conversation on phatmass....and it isn't the first time I've been in a discussion about it.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Cam42

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Noel's angel' timestamp='1308498332' post='2255941']
Why not come out and say it then? If they can name other instruments, why not name the guitar also? (Again, I reiterate that I'm 'anti guitar'.)
[/quote]
No Vatican document has ever forbidden unicycling during the procession either, but it doesn't take too much in the way of critical thinking to see that it's inappropriate.

[Cam42]

Lucy Carroll put out a series of articles about 10 years ago or so now, maybe a little less, but they are still apropos:

[url="http://www.adoremus.org/0703Soloists.html"]Musicians in Catholic Worship I[/url]
[url="http://www.adoremus.org/0903Organists.html"]Musicians in Catholic Worship II[/url]
[url="http://www.adoremus.org/1003Music.html"]Musicians in Catholic Worship III[/url]

While this is aimed specifically at reforming the musical sensibilities of the Novus Ordo, you can see the development of Tradition in what she says.

[Noel's angel]

If we all started riding unicycles around during Mass, I'd say a statement would come out pretty swiftly telling people not to do it.