Guitar Music at Mass

[Credo in Deum]

13 minutes ago, Peace said:

You might want to seek out a so-called "Reform of the Reform" NO parish. At one parish I go to they do a good part of the liturgy in Latin, the priest faces the altar, altar rail & communion kneeling & on the tongue, your so-called "traditional" chant type music, etc.  If this is what you think VII wanted such parishes do actually exist.

But the question is - would that be good enough for you? Or is your objection to the NO at a more fundamental level?

It's not my so-called traditional chant, it's the Church's traditional chant.  I understand some NO parishes actually do these things and I attend those parishes when I can. I even attend NO parishes that don't.  That "traditional Catholic" chip on your shoulder is showing more and more. You might want to do something about that. 

[Peace]

48 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

It's not my so-called traditional chant, it's the Church's traditional chant.  

Heh. Well yes I am well aware that you did  not invent it.

48 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

I understand some NO parishes actually do these things and I attend those parishes when I can. I even attend NO parishes that don't.  That "traditional Catholic" chip on your shoulder is showing more and more. You might want to do something about that. 

I am also well aware that the "traditionally" minded folks on this site believe that I have it out for them. Conservatives think that I have it out for conservatives, and liberals think that I have it out for liberals.

If you think that I have a particular dislike of so-called "traditionalists" I am sorry to hear that, but some of you are simply babies and use the "woe is me, you hate trads" card as a shield to ward off any legitimate criticism, question, or disagreement. In this particular case I asked you a question. If that gets you all bent out of shape you need to grow some thicker skin. It is what it is.

[Credo in Deum]

6 minutes ago, Peace said:

Heh. Well yes I am well aware that you did  not invent it.

I am also well aware that the "traditionally" minded folks on this site believe that I have it out for them. Conservatives think that I have it out for conservatives, and liberals think that I have it out for liberals.

If you think that I have a particular dislike of so-called "traditionalists" I am sorry to hear that, but some of you are simply babies and use the "woe is me, you hate trads" card as a shield to ward off any legitimate criticism, question, or disagreement. In this particular case I asked you a question. If that gets you all bent out of shape you need to grow some thicker skin. It is what it is.

You seem pretty bent outta shape yourself.  I didn't see any legitimate criticism, questions, or disagreements. I just saw a lot of assumptions and snark coming from you. Maybe if you toned down on that crap others wouldn't assume you have a dislike for traditional Catholics.  Just a thought. It is what it is.

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

You seem pretty bent outta shape yourself.  I didn't see any legitimate criticism, questions, or disagreements. I just saw a lot of assumptions and snark coming from you. Maybe if you toned down on that crap others wouldn't assume you have a dislike for traditional Catholics.  Just a thought. It is what it is.

I did not assume anything. I asked you two questions. If I assumed something I would have made a statement, not asked you a question.

The legitimate disagreement I had with what you wrote is perfectly obvious. You wrote that the only Mass being celebrated according to what VII wanted is the EF. I disagreed, indicating that at least the "Reform of the Reform" NO parishes would satisfy what VII wanted, if "tradional" things such as Latin and chant are your criteria.

As for snark, don't dish it out if you cannot take it. You know very well that many of us prefer the NO, and your insinuation that only the EF is in accord with VII, and that this is ironic, is snide and insulting (let alone wrong).

Then I after I disagreed with your assertion, you pulled out the "woe is me, you hate trads" card.

And then I called you a baby.

It is what it is. 

Have a good night (and I mean this sincerely).

[Amppax]

15 hours ago, havok579257 said:

I admit I don't know the fine details about mass music and what's set in stone.  I guess I would question why your against certain types of music if the church allows it?  If I am understanding it right, they allow other forms of music at the mass.  So why be against something the church approves?  I understand not liking all the music but if the church approves something, why go against the church?

 

 

 

 

I can't claim to answer for Bardegaulois, but I'll offer my own personal reflection on the topic. I'll start by saying I'm not diametrically opposed to using contemporary music or instruments, so my position differs somewhat from his. However, in studying the Churches teaching on the liturgy, it seems to me that there are two standards if you will. On the one hand, there is what I would term "permissible." This would include a wide variety of liturgical practices, including much of what was deemed allowable in the reforms following Vatican II. Let me just stress that I'm not using permissible pejoratively. All these practices can be done reverently, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. Indeed, I think it's possible to make the argument that they can be beneficial, in their proper place. 

However, let's now address the second standard, to continue with the language above. This would be the class of practices which, according to the theology of the liturgy, are most fitting and proper to the liturgy. In the case of music, that would be chant. Another example, without getting too far into other areas, would be worship ad orientem. Personally, I think it's really hard to read the liturgical norms in light of the theological tradition (and here I'm thinking particularly of the 20th-century liturgical movement) and think that the normative practice should be anything other than chant. 

tl;dr - the problem we find ourself facing today, is that the norm has become the exception, and the exception the norm. 

Again, I do think there can be a place for contemporary music in the liturgy, and it is obviously permissible. But why make the permissible exception the norm over what is liturgically more fitting? And, to preempt what I think will probably be the answer, no, "people like contemporary music more" is not a valid answer. The liturgy does not exist for our sake, we exist for its sake, or, more properly, we exist so that we can worship God. And I think, objectively, there are better ways of worshipping. 

[Credo in Deum]

7 hours ago, Peace said:

I did not assume anything. I asked you two questions. If I assumed something I would have made a statement, not asked you a question.

The legitimate disagreement I had with what you wrote is perfectly obvious. You wrote that the only Mass being celebrated according to what VII wanted is the EF. I disagreed, indicating that at least the "Reform of the Reform" NO parishes would satisfy what VII wanted, if "tradional" things such as Latin and chant are your criteria.

As for snark, don't dish it out if you cannot take it. You know very well that many of us prefer the NO, and your insinuation that only the EF is in accord with VII, and that this is ironic, is snide and insulting (let alone wrong).

Then I after I disagreed with your assertion, you pulled out the "woe is me, you hate trads" card.

And then I called you a baby.

It is what it is. 

Have a good night (and I mean this sincerely).

[dells_of_bittersweet]

21 hours ago, Amppax said:

However, in studying the Churches teaching on the liturgy, it seems to me that there are two standards if you will. On the one hand, there is what I would term "permissible." This would include a wide variety of liturgical practices, including much of what was deemed allowable in the reforms following Vatican II. Let me just stress that I'm not using permissible pejoratively. All these practices can be done reverently, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. Indeed, I think it's possible to make the argument that they can be beneficial, in their proper place. 

However, let's now address the second standard, to continue with the language above. This would be the class of practices which, according to the theology of the liturgy, are most fitting and proper to the liturgy. In the case of music, that would be chant. Another example, without getting too far into other areas, would be worship ad orientem. Personally, I think it's really hard to read the liturgical norms in light of the theological tradition (and here I'm thinking particularly of the 20th-century liturgical movement) and think that the normative practice should be anything other than chant. 

tl;dr - the problem we find ourself facing today, is that the norm has become the exception, and the exception the norm. 

Again, I do think there can be a place for contemporary music in the liturgy, and it is obviously permissible. But why make the permissible exception the norm over what is liturgically more fitting? And, to preempt what I think will probably be the answer, no, "people like contemporary music more" is not a valid answer. The liturgy does not exist for our sake, we exist for its sake, or, more properly, we exist so that we can worship God. And I think, objectively, there are better ways of worshipping. 

In the case of contemporary music, I disagree with your assertion that there is a preferred genre, chant, with other genres being allowed. If this was the case, the documents would say something along the lines that for pastoral reasons inferior music should be allowed to persist. Yet, Vatican II actively called for the composition of liturgical music in contemporary genres:

"61. Adapting sacred music for those regions which possess a musical tradition of their own, especially mission areas,[42] will require a very specialized preparation by the experts. It will be a question in fact of how to harmonize the sense of the sacred with the spirit, traditions and characteristic expressions proper to each of these peoples. Those who work in this field should have a sufficient knowledge both of the liturgy and musical tradition of the Church, and of the language, popular songs and other characteristic expressions of the people for whose benefit they are working."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_instr_19670305_musicam-sacram_en.html

Also to be considered is the statement of Sacrosanctum Concilium number 116: "116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30."

How do I reconcile these two passages? Note the phrase "all things being equal." In an ideal world, chant is the preferred music for the liturgy. But in the real world, all things are not equal, particularly culture. Hence, music directors have to make a judgement between the ideal of chant and the culture of the people. 

[bardegaulois]

I endorse the points that Amppax and Credo in Deum made here. I'd like to address a couple of further things, though.

First, Peace, you talk about the reform of the reform as though that outlived the Ratzinger pontificate. Perhaps there are still bishops and clergy in certain quarters friendly to it, but Francis made it clear last year that he has no patience for it. To give you opposing viewpoints, I'll link both to America and to Rorate Caeli: http://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2016/12/06/pope-francis-there-will-be-no-reform-reform-liturgyhttp://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/important-in-interview-pope-francis.html

Related to this, we can consider the fate of the Novus Ordo said or sung in Latin, now as rare as a hen's tooth (outside monasteries, at least). Moreover, we can also consider the recent talk of rolling back to more recent and accurate translation of the Missal, which may mean a return to the frankly awful old translation.

Dells, again you misapprehend my argument if you think I posit that non-traditional music was the sole cause, or even a primary cause, of the blight upon the Church visited after the Council. We both know that this is reductionistic. However, both are fruits of a profound change in mindset that took place at roughly the same time that manifested in liturgy, ecclesiastical arts (the dreaded wreckovations), pastoral practice, and the sense of Catholicity inculcated into the faithful -- because suddenly of the great phenomena and signs of our faith were gone, and presented Catholicism to the faithful as Episcopalianism with crummier choirs at best, evangelicalism at worst. In my more chagrined moments, I sometimes wonder if many responsible for the government of the Church after the Council weren't actually working from within to destroy her.

You mention Lifeteen; it's not too great a digression to recall to mind the fate of its founder, onetime priest Dale Fushek -- charged with sexual misconduct, apostate, laicized, and excommunicated. When I read the news about him, considering what I've mentioned regarding my experience with contemporary-style churches (and considering I live in a diocese hit very hard by sexual misconduct), I could only think it just seemed rather typical of the modernizers. They've burnt us so often that I just can't conscientiously consider them sincere.

[Amppax]

@dells_of_bittersweet I don't have time to respond in full to your post, but just a quick response, while time allows. I'm confused with your reading, especially of Sacrosanctum Concilium. What do you think it means to give Gregorian Chant pride of place? 

 

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Amppax said:

@dells_of_bittersweet I don't have time to respond in full to your post, but just a quick response, while time allows. I'm confused with your reading, especially of Sacrosanctum Concilium. What do you think it means to give Gregorian Chant pride of place? 

Doesn't it mean that Gregorian Chant should be used, unless there are good reasons for using another form of music?

[Peace]

On 2/16/2017 at 9:08 PM, Credo in Deum said:

You're confusing what the Church permits as being what the Church wants! This is a common issues with many is they think permits =/=wants.  The documents of VII say the vernacular is permitted, but they also stress that the Church WANTS Latin to have pride of place in the Liturgy. . .

Doesn't this argument apply equally well to people who attend the EF?  The Church has made her preference for the NO known, while it only permits the EF.

So let's say that you compare an EF Mass with a NO Mass that you agree is in conformity with VII (let's say one of the "Reform of the Reform" type of Masses that I described above).  Would you agree, then, that it would be better for you to attend the NO Mass, since this is what the church "wants" as opposed to what it "permits"?

[Jack4]

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

The Church has made her preference for the NO known, while it only permits the EF.

Source?

[KnightofChrist]

The O.F. is the most common but it does not have pride of place over the E.F. or any of the other expressions of the Latin Rite. Guitar music is not the same as Chant and can be forbidden by a Bishop and replaced with Chant. The E.F. cannot be forbidden legally it's the same Rite in a different Form or expression. 

Fun fact there are nine Forms or expressions of the Latin Rite.

----

Source: http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/faq/the-roman-rite-and-the-extraordinary-form.html

Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. In the Ordinary Form the Mass is celebrated according to the Missale Romanum of 1969, promulgated by Pope Paul VI, which is currently in its third edition (2002). This form is widely celebrated in the vernacular.

Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. In the Extraordinary Form, Mass is celebrated according to the Missale Romanum of 1570. While this Missal was codified at the Council of Trent, it was in use at least since the time of St. Gregory the Great. It is used today according to the 1962 edition, promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII during the Second Vatican Council. In accordance with norms of Summorum Pontificum, all Roman Rite clergy may celebrate according to the Extraordinary Form.

Bragan. – Rite of the Archdiocese of Braga, the Primatial See of Portugal, deriving from at least the 12th century.

Mozarabic. – This is the Rite of Spain and Portugal which dates from the 6th century or earlier. It is still used in the Cathedral of the Archdiocese of Toledo, Spain, and some other parishes.

Ambrosian. – This is the Rite of the Archdiocese of Milan, Italy, thought to be of ancient origin, but organized by St. Ambrose.

Dominican. This is the Rite of the Order of Friars Preacher (OP), founded by St. Dominic in 1215.

Carmelite. – This is the Rite of the Order of Carmel, whose modern foundation was by St. Berthold c.1154.

Carthusian. This is the Rite of the Carthusian Order founded by St. Bruno in 1084.

Anglican Use. Where Anglican clergy with their parishes have come into full communion with the Holy See, Rome has granted the faculty of celebrating the Sacred Liturgy according to Anglican forms, doctrinally corrected.

[Jack4]

2 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

The E.F. cannot be forbidden

 

legally it's the same Rite in a different Form or expression

Both statements are true, but the EF can't be forbidden because it is a received rite. 

[Peace]

47 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

Source?

Well why reform the EF at all if you there is not something else that is preferable to it?  I think that is rather obvious.

How many EF Masses are offered for every NO Mass?  1 to 50? 1 to 100? I suppose you think that our Bishops prefer the EF somehow given the disparity? The suggestion seems rather silly.

But if you must have something - take a look at the facts. Celebration of the EF came by way of an indult (Quattuor abhinc annos).  Then later it was allowed to be celebrated without the indult by way of Summorium Pontificum, which  states that the NO continues to be the ordinary form of the rite, and then explains various reasons for permitting the EF to be celebrated. . .

But I am sure that @KnightofChrist will correct me if any of that is wrong.