Guitar Music at Mass

[Peace]

10 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

I've read it. I've also read Sancrosanctam Consilium, and I have a working familiarity with centuries of Catholic liturgical tradition. Just because an option is given doesn't mean it's prudent to exercise it. We've seen enough innovation and experimentation over the past 50 years, and the results have left much to be desired. Now it's time to go back to the tried, tested, and true. Enough of this aggiornamento; let's have more ressourcement.

Go tell your parish priest, your bishop, and the Pope that, because without their approval you will never get what you desire. In the meantime feel free to keep venting about it on the internet and living in your own secluded world where you obtain vindication for your views, while the rest of us continue to happily worship God with music that the Church has approved.

[bardegaulois]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Go tell your parish priest, your bishop, and the Pope that, because without their approval you will never get what you desire. In the meantime feel free to keep venting about it on the internet and living in your own secluded world where you obtain vindication for your views, while the rest of us continue to happily worship God with music that the Church has approved.

I have, and they haven't even been courteous enough to answer my letters. Thus, having no patience for such rudeness, I hear the TLM and have little to do with my bishop or parish priest. If you want to have a holy hootenanny, be my guest, but just be aware that I will not darken your church door nor will I be making any contributions to support your parish. I'll let my feet and my wallet be my vote in this contest.

[Peace]

19 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

I hear the TLM and have little to do with my bishop or parish priest.

You are practically your own Pope.

19 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

If you want to have a holy hootenanny, be my guest, but just be aware that I will not darken your church door nor will I be making any contributions to support your parish. I'll let my feet and my wallet be my vote in this contest.

My church is the same as your church, and your contributions support my parish, just as my contributions support your parish.

There is only one Body of Christ. Not a TLM body and a NO body.  

And by God's grace we are both blessed to be members  of it.

[bardegaulois]

46 minutes ago, Peace said:

You are practically your own Pope.

My church is the same as your church, and your contributions support my parish, just as my contributions support your parish.

There is only one Body of Christ. Not a TLM body and a NO body.  

And by God's grace we are both blessed to be members  of it.

Not my choice; theirs. We work with the same Church, but some of her members are about as compatible as oil and water. Long experience, moreover, tells me that there are some persons with whom any sort of dialogue and common effort is simply impossible -- such as those with personality disorders. It's a pity some of these people are prelates and clergy, but what am I going to do about it? Pray for their souls, of course, but also seek close collaborators elsewhere. By the grace of God, I've found many.

[CatherineM]

This is just another topic for the express purpose of arguing that some Catholics are better Catholics than others. Being poor, living in a poor parish, doesn't make my mass less valid than the one on the other side of town where they can pay musicians and singers. My liking one kind of valid, sacred mass music, doesn't make me less of a Catholic. 

[dells_of_bittersweet]

On 2/10/2017 at 0:36 AM, bardegaulois said:

I've read it. I've also read Sancrosanctam Consilium, and I have a working familiarity with centuries of Catholic liturgical tradition. Just because an option is given doesn't mean it's prudent to exercise it. We've seen enough innovation and experimentation over the past 50 years, and the results have left much to be desired. Now it's time to go back to the tried, tested, and true. Enough of this aggiornamento; let's have more ressourcement.

This is a sad illustration of the Traditionalist Two-step. Invariably in discussions about liturgical music, the traditionalist will begin with the claim that the church documents on the liturgy only allow for chant and polyphony and that people playing other genres are disobedient Catholics. When confronted with the actual text of the documents, the traditionalist will then claim that exclusively chant and polyphony should be played for some other reason. This leads to a tyranny of emotional preference. 

In case I haven't been clear, I am in fully support of the use of traditional music. I am also in full support of the use of contemporary music. I don't think there needs to be a conflict between these genres as churches could either offer some of both in each mass or offer multiples masses each of which is entirely of one genre. I don't think its right to deny people a spiritual practice that the church allows. 

[Starets]

we don't have a keyboard player so we have guitar music. there are two local guitarists who alternate sundays for us. they are both very good. sure it would be nice to have Latin chant and organ but none oSf us can sing and no one can play keyboard. but even some of the more traditionalist minded people in the canyon like to come to our Sunday masses. go figue!

[bardegaulois]

2 hours ago, dells_of_bittersweet said:

This is a sad illustration of the Traditionalist Two-step. Invariably in discussions about liturgical music, the traditionalist will begin with the claim that the church documents on the liturgy only allow for chant and polyphony and that people playing other genres are disobedient Catholics. When confronted with the actual text of the documents, the traditionalist will then claim that exclusively chant and polyphony should be played for some other reason. This leads to a tyranny of emotional preference. 

In case I haven't been clear, I am in fully support of the use of traditional music. I am also in full support of the use of contemporary music. I don't think there needs to be a conflict between these genres as churches could either offer some of both in each mass or offer multiples masses each of which is entirely of one genre. I don't think its right to deny people a spiritual practice that the church allows. 

Consider it sad if you want, but you must consider that your point of view has the burden of proof. You have supporting you a statement by a group of bishops fifty years ago and then massive apostasies and secularization in the Church since your plan was implemented, and that on a very broad scale, I add. It doesn't speak well to it. It sounds like a mistake, or at least like an option that shouldn't really be taken seriously very longer. You can keep on thinking as you do about how we can make pop or pseudofolk or whatever you call the type of music you want to play at Mass better, but to my mind it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

But if you want to speak about a tyranny of emotional preference here, consider that I am advocating for an option that has persisted for centuries generally without complaint (thus, the option that is supported by Chesterton's "democracy of the dead") and you are advocating for one that, as I indicated, doesn't have excellent support. If both of these are licit, which is the most reasonable to choose? It seems you're choosing the one you prefer emotionally. Therefore, again, that's something of a rich accusation you're making against me.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

13 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

But if you want to speak about a tyranny of emotional preference here, consider that I am advocating for an option that has persisted for centuries generally without complaint (thus, the option that is supported by Chesterton's "democracy of the dead") and you are advocating for one that, as I indicated, doesn't have excellent support. If both of these are licit, which is the most reasonable to choose? It seems you're choosing the one you prefer emotionally. Therefore, again, that's something of a rich accusation you're making against me.

I'll address the claims of music causing mass apostasy later, but for now:

I was pretty clear that I think both forms of music should be allowed. I think both forms should be chosen! I think churches should program both traditional and contemporary genres either offering some of both in the same mass or offering multiple masses each of which is entirely one or the other such that people have access to the mode of spirituality that best helps them relate to God. Furthermore, what genre the hymns we play are could be much less controversial if we were chanting the ordinary of the Mass rather than having most of it spoken. Unfortunately many priests can sing and I'm not in a position to be able to change that. But, in an ideal world, every mass would be full of chant, regardless of the hymn genres. 

[bardegaulois]

20 hours ago, dells_of_bittersweet said:

Furthermore, what genre the hymns we play are could be much less controversial if we were chanting the ordinary of the Mass rather than having most of it spoken. Unfortunately many priests can sing and I'm not in a position to be able to change that.

Thank you for saying this. I concur fully with the first statement. Regarding the second, though, you, being a church musician, are in a position to change that. You could focus efforts on teaching both choristers and clergy to read and sing Gregorian chant. But it looks instead like you're more interested in focusing how best to play the historically non-liturgical guitar, as your original question generally indicated. So I'd dare ask you to think long and hard about what your priorities really are.

[Peace]

23 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

Consider it sad if you want, but you must consider that your point of view has the burden of proof. You have supporting you a statement by a group of bishops fifty years ago and then massive apostasies and secularization in the Church since your plan was implemented, and that on a very broad scale, I add. It doesn't speak well to it. It sounds like a mistake, or at least like an option that shouldn't really be taken seriously very longer. You can keep on thinking as you do about how we can make pop or pseudofolk or whatever you call the type of music you want to play at Mass better, but to my mind it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

These are rather weak arguments. First, substantive comparisons between different ages is rather impossible. 99% of the pre-Vatican II Church could have repudiated the faith for all you know. 99% of those folks could be in hell right now. Only God knows the hearts of men and the extent to which the men and women of that age had genuine faith. There could be far more Catholics today who have a genuine faith.

Secondly, the Holy Spirit touches the heart of man and draws him towards God.   Guitar, Gregorian Chant, or Gospel music do nothing apart from God. They are means that the Holy Spirit can make use of as He sees fitting.

Thirdly, correlation does not equate to causation. If that were the case I could also wrongly sit here and make an argument that the use of Gregorian chant caused the East/West split, or that the use of Latin caused the Protestant Reformation.

Quote

If both of these are licit, which is the most reasonable to choose?

If there is only one correct answer to the question of which type of music should be used, why would the magisterium allow different forms of music at all? Either it is good that more modern forms of music should be used, or the current magisterium has erred in allowing their use. So which is it?

The bottom line is this the decision of which music to use has been left to bishops and parish priests to decide. You can have whatever preference you please or believe that whatever form of music you desire is the best, but ultimately it is not your choice to make. People who want to use more modern forms of music are free to do so, you have no authority to tell them that they cannot do so, and you have no authority to tell them that they are wrong. Can you accept that?

By the way, I am guessing that you are a Vatican II rejecting "Rad Trad". Is this assessment wrong? Can a Catholic satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending a NO Mass, or must he attend an EF parish? I am just trying to get a sense of where you are on the so-called "traditionalist" spectrum.

[bardegaulois]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

By the way, I am guessing that you are a Vatican II rejecting "Rad Trad". Is this assessment wrong? Can a Catholic satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending a NO Mass, or must he attend an EF parish? I am just trying to get a sense of where you are on the so-called "traditionalist" spectrum.

If by "Rad Trad," you mean radical traditionalist, then surely you're intelligent enough to understand what an oxymoron that is. Do I attend an EF parish? Yes. It's a diocesan parish, moreover, not some SSPX chapel. To be frank, I've never even met an SSPX priest. Do I dislike the Novus Ordo? It's scarcely my preference, especially as commonly practiced, but it's a valid Mass. Could it benefit from the use of the Latin, chant, eastward orientation, and the like, so as to inculcate a greater sense of the sacred in the faithful? Yes. Had such things been normative to NO from its inception, would we be seeing so many clamouring for the TLM nowadays? Probably not. Is contemporary preaching and pastoral practice a lukewarm failure? Yes.

Is Vatican II the culprit? No. Are any of the official documents of the Council erroneous? No. Is the Council often used wrongly to defend erroneous teachings or practices? Yes. Do I even talk about Vatican II very much? No. Why not? If it changed nothing, but everyone seems to believe it did, then I'm best off just generally avoiding this can of worms and citing the Council of Trent instead, which said the same things for the most part, instead. Would my faith life be any different had V2 never happened? Probably not, but I might be less argumentative about issues like this.

The Church is 2,000 years old, not 50, as so many would seem to believe. As even Pope John considered Vatican II a pastoral council, not called to define new dogma or anything of the like, then it's nowhere near as significant as First Nicaea or Ephesus or Trent. Like the reigns of so many easily forgettable popes, it's just not a significant factor to my faith except as a disingenuous excuse often used by modernists.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

The bottom line is this the decision of which music to use has been left to bishops and parish priests to decide. You can have whatever preference you please or believe that whatever form of music you desire is the best, but ultimately it is not your choice to make. People who want to use more modern forms of music are free to do so, you have no authority to tell them that they cannot do so, and you have no authority to tell them that they are wrong. Can you accept that?

Hey, this is the internet. What's the point of even having an internet if you can't be an ornery SOB on it? I do have the right, though, to say that I will give your parish no money and that I will hear Mass elsewhere if I find their style of worship or homiletics to be lacking in reverence or good taste.

[Peace]

21 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

If by "Rad Trad," you mean radical traditionalist, then surely you're intelligent enough to understand what an oxymoron that is.

 Perhaps it is an oxymoron.

21 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

Do I attend an EF parish? Yes. It's a diocesan parish, moreover, not some SSPX chapel. To be frank, I've never even met an SSPX priest. Do I dislike the Novus Ordo? It's scarcely my preference, especially as commonly practiced, but it's a valid Mass. Could it benefit from the use of the Latin, chant, eastward orientation, and the like, so as to inculcate a greater sense of the sacred in the faithful? Yes. Had such things been normative to NO from its inception, would we be seeing so many clamouring for the TLM nowadays? Probably not. Is contemporary preaching and pastoral practice a lukewarm failure? Yes.

Is Vatican II the culprit? No. Are any of the official documents of the Council erroneous? No. Is the Council often used wrongly to defend erroneous teachings or practices? Yes. Do I even talk about Vatican II very much? No. Why not? If it changed nothing, but everyone seems to believe it did, then I'm best off just generally avoiding this can of worms and citing the Council of Trent instead, which said the same things for the most part, instead. Would my faith life be any different had V2 never happened? Probably not, but I might be less argumentative about issues like this.

 Fair enough. I suppose that I would not consider you a "Rad Trad" based on those responses. I had suspected otherwise based on some of your previous responses such as the "I would not even darken your church door" response and so forth.

21 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

The Church is 2,000 years old, not 50, as so many would seem to believe.

I am not sure who thinks the Church is 50 years old. Perhaps this is your imagination working?

21 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

As even Pope John considered Vatican II a pastoral council, not called to define new dogma or anything of the like, then it's nowhere near as significant as First Nicaea or Ephesus or Trent. Like the reigns of so many easily forgettable popes, it's just not a significant factor to my faith except as a disingenuous excuse often used by modernists.

Well. Whether it is is more or less significant than those earlier councils is of no particular concern of mine. That is up to the Magisterium to decide. I abide by them all to the extent that I can.

You sound somewhat as if you have no need of a living authority. It seems to me that with the development of modern science, biomedical treatments, cloning, artificial intelligence, etc. the living Magisterium will have plenty of things to say that should impact the manner in which we carry out our faith. Do you think that you will be able to resolve these issues by yourself just by referring to the Nicaea or Trent?

Quote

Hey, this is the internet. What's the point of even having an internet if you can't be an ornery SOB on it? I do have the right, though, to say that I will give your parish no money and that I will hear Mass elsewhere if I find their style of worship or homiletics to be lacking in reverence or good taste.

Well, as I said before, you will likely give NO parishes money whether you like it or not, because a certain portion of your contributions is typically sent up to the diocese and then spread among the churches in the diocese, depending on the particular needs of each.

And really. It is not a competition between parishes. It is one body of Christ. What benefits the hand benefits the foot. I don't think that people from one Catholic parish not wanting to help another Catholic parish because they don't like the music is exactly the type of unity that Jesus had in mind . . .

[bardegaulois]

39 minutes ago, Peace said:

 

I am not sure who thinks the Church is 50 years old. Perhaps this is your imagination working?

Well. Whether it is is more or less significant than those earlier councils is of no particular concern of mine. That is up to the Magisterium to decide. I abide by them all to the extent that I can.

You sound somewhat as if you have no need of a living authority. It seems to me that with the development of modern science, biomedical treatments, cloning, artificial intelligence, etc. the living Magisterium will have plenty of things to say that should impact the manner in which we carry out our faith. Do you think that you will be able to resolve these issues by yourself just by referring to the Nicaea or Trent?

First paragraph: I think somehow you misunderstand the meaning of the word "seem." No one would declare such a thing outright, but often their actions can indicate something else to a reasonable observer. Of course, often the actors aren't even fully aware of their mindsets in doing so, and thus one can't justly impugn them. However, a sort of cognitive disconnect can become apparent to many around them; that is, they don't practice what they preach.

Second paragraph: I also believe you misunderstand what the word "magisterium" refers to. The magisterium is not any person or persons; the magisterium is the authority of the Church to establish her teachings, as exercised most bindingly through pope and councils -- the extraordinary magisterium. Thus, the Second Vatican Council excised the extraordinary magisterium. Likewise, so did prior councils and infallible papal statements, and everything within the council's constitutions can be corroborated or at least not contradicted in this prior work, albeit in different language. However, as it was merely restatement of previous extraordinarily magisterial statements (save in a few cases, such as ideas about religious liberty), then we can consider it perhaps edifying, but not truly necessary to take the sort of account of that most Catholic thinkers and writers do.

As for paragraph three, I'll just be frank. After having known so many clergy teaching outright heresy and/or making the Gospel as insipid and inoffensive as possible, I am certainly a little cautious with whom I recognize as authoritative and those to whom I refer the charges I've instructed. Not to be discerning in these situations is not only naive, but spiritually dangerous. There are certain criteria for my recognition -- and these are the criteria established by the extraordinary magisterium, the highest level of authority. Considering that I've been a student of philosophy and theology (among the other arts and sciences) for over 20 years, I'd dare say that my understanding of Catholic doctrine and practice is fairly solid, though, as with all scholars, it's a continually ongoing and evolving process. Needless to say, if the pope or bishops speak about any of these scientific things you mention, can you have a reasonable supposition that their statements will be continuous with past magisterial statements? We generally can. However sometimes they are not clear and might give certain prelates, clergy, and faithful the wrong idea about what they mean, in which case it is important to dispel the confusion and illustrate the continuity better...

In fact, aren't we seeing this demonstrated in the matter of the Dubia right now, as we speak?

[Peace]

7 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

First paragraph: I think somehow you misunderstand the meaning of the word "seem." No one would declare such a thing outright, but often their actions can indicate something else to a reasonable observer. Of course, often the actors aren't even fully aware of their mindsets in doing so, and thus one can't justly impugn them. However, a sort of cognitive disconnect can become apparent to many around them; that is, they don't practice what they preach.

I am not sure who it is that "seems" that the Church has only existed for 50 years either. What type of actions would indicate that?

Quote

Second paragraph: I also believe you misunderstand what the word "magisterium" refers to. The magisterium is not any person or persons; the magisterium is the authority of the Church to establish her teachings, as exercised most bindingly through pope and councils -- the extraordinary magisterium. Thus, the Second Vatican Council excised the extraordinary magisterium. Likewise, so did prior councils and infallible papal statements, and everything within the council's constitutions can be corroborated or at least not contradicted in this prior work, albeit in different language. However, as it was merely restatement of previous extraordinarily magisterial statements (save in a few cases, such as ideas about religious liberty), then we can consider it perhaps edifying, but not truly necessary to take the sort of account of that most Catholic thinkers and writers do.

Well I was using the term as shorthand for the living pope and bishops, who exercise authority. I can write the full phrase out each time if that helps ease your mind.

Quote

As for paragraph three, I'll just be frank. After having known so many clergy teaching outright heresy and/or making the Gospel as insipid and inoffensive as possible, I am certainly a little cautious with whom I recognize as authoritative and those to whom I refer the charges I've instructed. Not to be discerning in these situations is not only naive, but spiritually dangerous. There are certain criteria for my recognition -- and these are the criteria established by the extraordinary magisterium, the highest level of authority. Considering that I've been a student of philosophy and theology (among the other arts and sciences) for over 20 years, I'd dare say that my understanding of Catholic doctrine and practice is fairly solid, though, as with all scholars, it's a continually ongoing and evolving process.

I am not sure where you live but if I saw a priest that I believed was teaching heresy I would report it to my bishop. Have you done that, or is your bishop among those who have preached heresy, in your view of things?

Quote

Needless to say, if the pope or bishops speak about any of these scientific things you mention, can you have a reasonable supposition that their statements will be continuous with past magisterial statements? We generally can. However sometimes they are not clear and might give certain prelates, clergy, and faithful the wrong idea about what they mean, in which case it is important to dispel the confusion and illustrate the continuity better...

Yes, I think so.

Quote

In fact, aren't we seeing this demonstrated in the matter of the Dubia right now, as we speak?

At least insofar as the authors of the Dubia are concerned, yes.