Usccb Allows Guitars At Mass

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1344933331' post='2467447']
In the first 40 years of the introduction of the organ was it used as a instrument of wide spread liturgical abuse as the guitar has these last 40 years? I doubt the same is true for the organ. I
[/quote]

You would be wrong.

[filius_angelorum]

A few things:
1st. Organ vs. guitar. One of the oft-neglected aspects of the organ's eventual incorporation into the liturgy is that the organ was chosen WHILE the guitar and other folk instruments were already in common use outside of the liturgy. This means that, in some way, the organ was found appropriate while the guitar has already been tried and found wanting. Why? Probably because the organ more or less is capable of mimicking the sonorous quality of the human voice by having longer sustained tones rather than rhythmic music. For this same reason, Pius X did not allow the piano but did allow wind instruments and violins. In other words, we have objective criteria by which to judge new instruments (it matters very little the source of those instruments), if we will only apply them. The guitar does not seem to fit those criteria, but other cultural instruments, even very odd ones, might.

2nd. While many seem to think that Gregorian Chant is all one thing or another, in fact chant ranges from easy pieces designed to be chanted by everybody (such as the Ordinary chants and chant hymns like the Miserere) to chants clearly meant for those who dedicate themselves to careful study of the chant (such as the Proper chants) to those which are merely functional (like the psalm tones and priest's chant). Chant is best unaccompanied, but when a congregation is first being introduced to the chant, an organ goes a long way.

3rd A Capella singing, even in parts, is something that can be trained into a culture and, in my mind, is one of the best gifts a leader can give his people. The sheer joy of having a congregation sing to the Lord with only their own voices adding the ornamentation and rhythm is palpable, and it was the preference of the early church, as it is now the law in many Eastern Churches. I know this from experience. At the school where I teach, we introduced a Capella hymn singing at the Chapel service (we can't afford an organ) along with a few simple chants for various points throughout the day, and the results have been very positive. Moreover, when you teach a group of people to make music with their own voices, it will never be an issue of whether the community is poor or rich, in Church or out of Church, a Mass or at a picnic, they will always be able to "make a joyful noise to the Lord."

[Jaime]

[quote name='filius_angelorum' timestamp='1344953887' post='2467494']
A few things:
1st. Organ vs. guitar. One of the oft-neglected aspects of the organ's eventual incorporation into the liturgy is that the organ was chosen WHILE the guitar and other folk instruments were already in common use outside of the liturgy. This means that, in some way, the organ was found appropriate while the guitar has already been tried and found wanting. Why? Probably because the organ more or less is capable of mimicking the sonorous quality of the human voice by having longer sustained tones rather than rhythmic music. [/quote]


Something you might consider in your equation that is even more neglected.

Organs are loud. Guitars are not. Up until 40 years when we started using audio equipment that was kind of a big deal. Also Cathedrals are (and churches up to 50 years ago) were built out of stone. Acoustically the organ works better than other instruments where the reverberation (lots of stone sound bounces a lot) and the rate of decay is quite high.

[filius_angelorum]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1344954741' post='2467501']



Something you might consider in your equation that is even more neglected.

Organs are loud. Guitars are not. Up until 40 years when we started using audio equipment that was kind of a big deal.
[/quote]

I think that is a fair point, but I think that to make liturgical decisions based on the availability of amplification is a serious mistake...I may sound like a Luddite, but it is my opinion that, among other questions one should ask in liturgical planning, one of the key ones should be, "If we didn't have electricity, would we still be able to do this?" If the answer is no, then do it a different way. We should make the human the key actor in worship, not the audio-visual effects system. Ugh, memories of the contrived theatrics at praise and worship events when I was Evangelical....

[Anomaly]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1344922943' post='2467392']
Close your eyes. Picture an organ. Where do you see it? In a department store? A movie theatre? I see it in a church.
Close them again. Picture a guitar. Who is holding it? Bach? Benedict? Clapton?

When it comes right down to it, the guitar is associated with profane art forms.
[/quote]When I think about hearing organs, I picture:
-Baseball games
-Hockey games
-Carnivals
-Merry go Round
-Scary Movies
and Church too!

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1344923612' post='2467397']
Here's what's funny. Organs were used in department stores and movie theaters. Silent films needed pianos and organs to bring the films to life. Department stores used organs to bring people in![/quote]
Thank you, but as someone who is studying organ at university, I was aware of this. That's why I picked those specific examples.

Are those the primary uses that spring to mind when you think of the organ?

[quote]Now close your eyes again. Do you see the organ in a third world country? Do you see it in a church where the congregation can't afford bread for their children? Do you see the Church making rules only for Europe and America? Was Sacrosanctum Concilium written just for the US?
[/quote]
I was under the impression that we were discussing this in the context of the first world - the USA, in particular - since everyone who has posted has been from the first world, since I have conceded that guitars and other instruments may be allowable in other cultures and countries, and since the title of the thread invokes the USCCB, which doesn't have any real authority anyway, but [i]certainly[/i] doesn't have any authority outside of the US.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1344924880' post='2467404']Why didn't he pull it out of my hand and smash it against the floor?
[/quote]
It's a good question. I don't claim to understand a lot of what bishops do - I don't know why Pope Benedict didn't kindly explain to Nancy Pelosi that she was a nitwit and was not to advertise herself as Catholic until she brought herself into alignment with Church teaching.
And then this bishop clearly thinks this is okay:
[img]http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images%20(101-200)/199-ClownMass.jpg[/img]

Not to say that your playing of the guitar is of the same magnitude as being pro-abortion. My point is that it is not unheard of for bishops to endorse things, either implicitly or explicitly, that certainly are not okay.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1344909351' post='2467279']
youth choir: none of the teens know how to play organ. you'll find very few that do anywhere in the world. so we have acoustic guitar, violin, viola, and cello and sometimes piano


and no...chant is not an option. nobody knows it to be able to teach it
[/quote]
You should come to Dallas more often. Also: repetition strengthens and confirms.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1344936480' post='2467454']
you are so cute and naiive! :bighug: for some reason you think the world is flowing with religious just itching to teach a 6000 family parish who cannot even afford to pay someone to play the organ that as a result sits unused, gregorian chant.

bucko...we have 2 major religious communities here. one is a cloistered carmelite monastery. i guess everyone could crowd around the bars to take remote lessons. the other is the franciscan friars of the renewal. oh wait...they not only play guitar, they rap! egadness.


reality suxors, huh?

i LOVE chant. i LOVE the organ. but it is not always possible man.


(BTW...monks are cloistered too. the correct term is friars)
[/quote]

Don't tell me about the correct term. I have battled people to the death about the correct terminology when it comes to Friars and Monks. I was referring to people like Benedictine Monks, who are not cloistered and who actually go out and teach. Being a Monk doesn't mean you are cloistered. There is a major difference.

[Jaime]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1344964894' post='2467551']
Thank you, but as someone who is studying organ at university, I was aware of this. That's why I picked those specific examples.

Are those the primary uses that spring to mind when you think of the organ?


I was under the impression that we were discussing this in the context of the first world - the USA, in particular - since everyone who has posted has been from the first world, since I have conceded that guitars and other instruments may be allowable in other cultures and countries, and since the title of the thread invokes the USCCB, which doesn't have any real authority anyway, but [i]certainly[/i] doesn't have any authority outside of the US.
[/quote]

You describe the usage of the organ in universal terms and back it up with documents that pertain to the whole world. So it's only fair to bring the rest of the world into the debate.

And since you are studying the organ, you are likely aware that if you did the "close your eyes" excercise when the organ was first introduced to the mass, many people would have answered the question of "what do you see" with "brothel"

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1344966760' post='2467565']
Don't tell me about the correct term. I have battled people to the death about the correct terminology when it comes to Friars and Monks. I was referring to people like Benedictine Monks, who are not cloistered and who actually go out and teach. Being a Monk doesn't mean you are cloistered. There is a major difference.
[/quote]
Dang. Chill out, little one.

MONK:
A monk may be conveniently defined as a member of a community of men, leading a more or less contemplative life apart from the world, under the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, according to a rule characteristic of the particular order to which he belongs. The word monk is not itself a term commonly used in the official language of the Church. It is a popular rather than a scientific designation, but is at the same time very ancient, so much so that its origin cannot be precisely determined. So far as regards the English form of the word, that undoubtedly comes from the Anglo-Saxon munuc, which has in turn arisen from the Latin monachus, a mere transliteration of the Greek monachos. This Greek form is commonly believed to be connected with monos, lonely or single, and is suggestive of a life of solitude; but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the word mone, from a different root, seems to have been freely used, e.g. by Palladius, as well as monasterion, in the sense of a religious house (see Butler, "Palladius's Lausiac History" passim). Be this as it may, the Fathers of the fourth century are by no means agreed as to the etymological significance of monachus. St Jerome writes to Heliodorus (P.L., XXII, 350), "Interpret the name monk, it is thine own; what business hast thou in a crowd, thou who art solitary?" St. Augustine on the other hand fastens on the idea of unity (monas) and in his exposition of Psalm 82, extols the appropriateness of the words "Ecce quam bonum et quam jucundum habitare fratres in unum" when chanted in a monastery, because those who are monks should have but one heart and one soul (P.L., XXXVII, 1733). Cassian (P.L., XLIX, 1097) and Pseudo-Dionysius (De Eccl. Hier., vi) seem to have thought monks were so called because they were celibate.
In any case the fact remains that the word monachus in the fourth century was freely used of those consecrated to God, whether they lived as hermits or in communities. So again St. Benedict a little later (c. 535) states at the beginning of his rule that there are four kinds of monks (monachi):[list]
[*]cenobites who live together under a rule or an abbot,
[*]anchorites or hermits, who after long training in the discipline of a community, go forth to lead a life of solitude (and of both of these classed he approves; but also
[*]"sarabites" and
[*]"girovagi" (wandering monks), whom he strongly condemns as men whose religious life is but a pretence, and who do their own without the restraint of obedience.
[/list]
It is probably due to the fact that the Rule of St. Benedict so constantly describes the brethren as monachi and their residence as monaslerium, that a tradition has arisen according to which these terms in Latin and English (though not so uniformly in the case of the corresponding German and French works) are commonly applied only to those religious bodies which in some measure reproduce the conditions of life contemplated in the old Benedictine Rule. The mendicant friars, e.g. the Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, etc., though they live in community and chant the Divine Office in choir, are not correctly described as monks. Their work of preaching, mixing with their fellow men in the world, soliciting alms, and moving from place to place, is inconsistent with the monastic ideal. The same is to be said of the "clerks regular", like the Jesuits, in whose rule the work of the apostolate is regarded as so important that it is considered incompatible with the obligation of singing office in choir. Again members of the religious congregations of men, which take simple but not solemn vows, are not usually designated as monks. On the other hand it should be noted that in former days a monk, even though he sang office in choir, was not necessarily a priest, the custom in this respect having changed a good deal since medieval times. Besides the Benedictines with their various modifications and offshoots, i.e. the Cluniacs, Cistercians, Trappists etc., the best known orders of monks are the Carthusians, the Premonstratensians, and the Camaldolese. The honorary prefix Dom, and abbreviation of Dominus is given to Benedictines and Carthusians.

------------------------------
FRIAR:
[From Lat. frater, through O. Fr. fredre, frere, M. E. frere; It. frate (as prefix fra); Sp. fraile (asprefix fray); Port. fret; unlike the other Romance languages French has but the one word frère for friar and brother].

A friar is a member of one of the mendicant orders.

Use of the word

In the early Church it was usual for all Christians to address each other as fratres or brothers, all being children of the one Heavenly Father, through Christ. Later, with the rise and growth of the monastic orders, the appellation began gradually to have a more restricted meaning; for obviously the bonds of brotherhood were drawn more closely between those who lived under the rule and guidance of one spiritual father, their abbot. The word occurs at an early date in English literature with the signification of brother, and from the end of the thirteenth century it is in frequent use referring to the members of the mendicant orders, e.g. c. 1297, "frere prechors" (R. Glouc. 10105); c. 1325, "freres of the Carme and of Saint Austin" (Pol. Songs, 331), c. 1400, "frere meneours" (Maunder, xxxi, 139); c. 1400, "Sakked freres" (Rom. Rose). Shakespeare speaks of the "Friars of orders gray" (Tam. Shr., iv, i, 148). The word was also loosely applied to members of monastic and military orders, and at times to the convent of a particular order, and hence to the part of a town in which such a convent had been located.

[b]The word friar is to be carefully distinguished in its application from the word monk. For the monk retirement and solitude are undisturbed by the public ministry, unless under exceptional circumstances. His vow of poverty binds him strictly as an individual but in no way affects the right of tenure of his order. In the life of the friar, on the contrary, the exercise of the sacred ministry is an essential feature, for which the life of the cloister is considered as but an immediate preparation. His vow of poverty, too, not only binds him as an individual to the exercise of that virtue, but, originally at least, precluded also the right of tenure in common with his brethren. Thus originally the various orders of friars could possess no fixed revenues and lived upon the voluntary offerings of the faithful. Hence their name of mendicants. This second feature, by which the friar's life differs so essentially from that of the monk, has become considerably modified since the Council of Trent.[/b] In Session XXV, ch. iii, "De Regular.", all the mendicant orders — the Friars Minor and Capuchins alone excepted — were granted the liberty of corporate possession. The Discalced Carmelites and the Jesuits have availed themselves of this privilege with restrictions (cf. Wernz, Jus Decretal., III, pt. II, 262, note). It may, however, be pertinently remarked here that the Jesuits, though mendicants in the strict sense of the word, as is evident from the very explicit declaration of St. Pius V (Const. "Cum indefessæ", 1571), are classed not as mendicants or friars, but as clerics regular, being founded with a view to devoting themselves, even more especially than the friars, to the exercise of the sacred ministry (Vermeersch, De Relig., I, xii, n. 8).

Orders of friars

The orders of friars are usually divided into two classes: the four great orders mentioned by the Second Council of Lyons (can. xxiii) and the lesser orders. The four great orders in their legal precedence are: (1) the Dominicans (St. Pius V, Const. "Divina", 1568); (2) the Franciscans; (3) the Carmelites, (4) the Augustinians.

The Dominicans, or Friars Preachers, formerly known as the Black Friars, from the black cappa or mantle worn over their white habit, were founded by St. Dominic in 1215 and solemnly approved by Honorius III, in Dec., 1216. They became a mendicant order in 1221.
The Franciscans, or Friars Minor (Grey Friars), were founded by St. Francis of Assisi, who is rightly regarded as the patriarch of the mendicant orders. His rule was orally approved by Innocent III in 1209 and solemnly confirmed by Honorius III in 1223 (Const. "Solet"). It is professed by the Friars Minor, the Conventuals, and the Capuchins.
The Carmelites, or White Friars, from the white cloak which covers their brown habit, were founded as a purely contemplative order, but became mendicants in 1245. They received the approbation of Honorius III (Const. "Ut vivendi", 30 Jan., 1226) and later of Innocent IV (Const. "Quæ honorem", 1247). The order is divided into two sections, the Calced and Discalced Carmelites.
The Augustinians, or Hermits of St. Augustine (Austin Friars), trace their origin to the illustrious Bishop of Hippo. The various branches which subsequently developed were united and constituted from various bodies of hermits a mendicant order by Alexander IV (Const. "Iis, quæ", 31 July, 1255, and Const. "Licet", 4 May, 1256).
These four orders are called by canonists the quatuor ordines mendicantes de iure communi. The Fourth Lateran Council ("De relic. dom.", III, tit. xxxvi, c. ix) had forbidden in 1215 the foundation of any new religious orders. In face of this prohibition a sufficient number of new congregations, especially of mendicants, had sprung up to attract the attention of the Second Council of Lyons. In canon xxiii, the council, while specially exempting the four mendicant orders above mentioned, condemns all other mendicant orders then existing to immediate or to gradual extinction. All orders established since the Council of Lateran, and not approved by the Holy See, were to be dissolved at once. Those since established with such approval were forbidden to receive new members. The illustrious order of Service, founded in 1233 and approved by Alexander IV in 1256 (Const. "Deo grata"), happily survived this condemnation. Concerning the four greater orders, the council concludes: "Be it understood, however, that we do not conceive of the extension of this constitution to the Orders of Friars Preachers and of Friars Minor, whose evident service to the universal Church is sufficient approval. As for the Hermits of St. Augustine and the Order of Carmelites, whose foundation preceded the said Council (Fourth Lateran), we wish them to remain as solidly established as heretofore" (Lib. III, tit. xvii, c. un., in VI). The importance of the orders thus singled out and exempted was afterwards still further emphasized by the insertion of this canon into the "Corpus Juri" in the "Liber Sixtus" of Boniface VIII.
The so-styled lesser orders, of which the following are today the most flourishing, were founded and approved at various subsequent periods: the Minims (1474), the Third Order Regular of St. Francis (1521); the Capuchin — as constituting a different branch of the Franciscan Order — (1525); the Discalced Carmelites — as constituting a distinct branch of the Carmelites — (1568); the Discalced Trinitarians (1599); the Order of Penance, known in Italy as the Scalzetti (1781).

[Lil Red]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1344904366' post='2467226'] I've played guitar at masses longer than most of you have been alive. [/quote]
did you let Norseman borrow your account?

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1344966974' post='2467568']
Dang. Chill out, little one.

A monk may be conveniently defined as a member of a community of men, leading a more or less contemplative life apart from the world, under the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, according to a rule characteristic of the particular order to which he belongs. The word monk is not itself a term commonly used in the official language of the Church. It is a popular rather than a scientific designation, but is at the same time very ancient, so much so that its origin cannot be precisely determined. So far as regards the English form of the word, that undoubtedly comes from the Anglo-Saxon munuc, which has in turn arisen from the Latin monachus, a mere transliteration of the Greek monachos. This Greek form is commonly believed to be connected with monos, lonely or single, and is suggestive of a life of solitude; but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the word mone, from a different root, seems to have been freely used, e.g. by Palladius, as well as monasterion, in the sense of a religious house (see Butler, "Palladius's Lausiac History" passim). Be this as it may, the Fathers of the fourth century are by no means agreed as to the etymological significance of monachus. St Jerome writes to Heliodorus (P.L., XXII, 350), "Interpret the name monk, it is thine own; what business hast thou in a crowd, thou who art solitary?" St. Augustine on the other hand fastens on the idea of unity (monas) and in his exposition of Psalm 82, extols the appropriateness of the words "Ecce quam bonum et quam jucundum habitare fratres in unum" when chanted in a monastery, because those who are monks should have but one heart and one soul (P.L., XXXVII, 1733). Cassian (P.L., XLIX, 1097) and Pseudo-Dionysius (De Eccl. Hier., vi) seem to have thought monks were so called because they were celibate.
In any case the fact remains that the word monachus in the fourth century was freely used of those consecrated to God, whether they lived as hermits or in communities. So again St. Benedict a little later (c. 535) states at the beginning of his rule that there are four kinds of monks (monachi):[list]
[*]cenobites who live together under a rule or an abbot,
[*]anchorites or hermits, who after long training in the discipline of a community, go forth to lead a life of solitude (and of both of these classed he approves; but also
[*]"sarabites" and
[*]"girovagi" (wandering monks), whom he strongly condemns as men whose religious life is but a pretence, and who do their own without the restraint of obedience.
[/list]
It is probably due to the fact that the Rule of St. Benedict so constantly describes the brethren as monachi and their residence as monaslerium, that a tradition has arisen according to which these terms in Latin and English (though not so uniformly in the case of the corresponding German and French works) are commonly applied only to those religious bodies which in some measure reproduce the conditions of life contemplated in the old Benedictine Rule. The mendicant friars, e.g. the Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, etc., though they live in community and chant the Divine Office in choir, are not correctly described as monks. Their work of preaching, mixing with their fellow men in the world, soliciting alms, and moving from place to place, is inconsistent with the monastic ideal. The same is to be said of the "clerks regular", like the Jesuits, in whose rule the work of the apostolate is regarded as so important that it is considered incompatible with the obligation of singing office in choir. Again members of the religious congregations of men, which take simple but not solemn vows, are not usually designated as monks. On the other hand it should be noted that in former days a monk, even though he sang office in choir, was not necessarily a priest, the custom in this respect having changed a good deal since medieval times. Besides the Benedictines with their various modifications and offshoots, i.e. the Cluniacs, Cistercians, Trappists etc., the best known orders of monks are the Carthusians, the Premonstratensians, and the Camaldolese. The honorary prefix Dom, and abbreviation of Dominus is given to Benedictines and Carthusians.
[/quote]

I actually wasn't angry. It takes a lot to get me angry.

One moment we're talking about music and the next we're talking about the differences between Monks and Friars. It won't be long before Groo posts a picture of a llama.

[Jaime]

[quote name='filius_angelorum' timestamp='1344955192' post='2467503']
I think that is a fair point, but I think that to make liturgical decisions based on the availability of amplification is a serious mistake...I may sound like a Luddite, but it is my opinion that, among other questions one should ask in liturgical planning, one of the key ones should be, "If we didn't have electricity, would we still be able to do this?" If the answer is no, then do it a different way. We should make the human the key actor in worship, not the audio-visual effects system. Ugh, memories of the contrived theatrics at praise and worship events when I was Evangelical....
[/quote]

The problem with that fillus is that with today's churches, you likely can't have a mass without electricity period. Regardless of what music is to be played.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1344967236' post='2467575']
I actually wasn't angry. It takes a lot to get me angry.

One moment we're talking about music and the next we're talking about the differences between Monks and Friars. It won't be long before Groo posts a picture of a llama.
[/quote]
Go back and look at the post again. The phorum kept conking out on me.