GIRM question about musical instruments

[missionseeker]

This is a little off topic, but one time I was at a church and I went in the bathroom and the footpedals for the organ were standing against the wall.

apearantly, synthesized instruments are forbidden as well.

[phatcatholic]

btw, where does it say that synthesized or amplified instruments are forbidden?

[Cam42]

[quote name='indescribable' post='1005307' date='Jun 13 2006, 11:35 PM']
Cam do you know of any dioceses/ regions that adhere to this strictly? Its just that until I ventured upon the debate board, I've never heard of this traditional stance on music. I dont' want to debate, but just be informed.
[/quote]

I don't know of any that adhere to this strictly. However, just because this is not adhered to doesn't mean that it is a logically and practically correct view.

One of the most disturbing things about the last 40 years is the sorely lacking amount of proper catechesis. I think that just as one must be catechized in theology, then one must also be catechized in the proper form and function of the liturgy.

[Cam42]

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='1005322' date='Jun 13 2006, 11:54 PM']
btw, where does it say that synthesized or amplified instruments are forbidden?
[/quote]

It is in the encyclical, De Musica Sacra. It says:

[quote name='De Musica Sacra #60c']Finally, only instruments which are personally played by a performer are to be used in the sacred liturgy, not those which are played mechanically or automatically.[/quote]

A synthesizer falls into this category.

There is a provision for a temporary (that being the key, [b]TEMPORARY[/b]) use of an electronic organ if even a small pipe organ is not available. However, this is simply tolerated and not to be the norm. It is even prescribed that explicit permission from the local Ordinary be given to even use this....

[quote name='De Musica Sacra #64']As a substitute, the electronic organ may be tolerated temporarily for liturgical functions, if the means for obtaining even a small pipe organ are not available. In each case, however, the explicit permission of the local Ordinary is required. He, on his part, should consult the diocesan commission on sacred music, and others trained in this field, who can make suggestions for rendering such an instrument more suitable for sacred use.[/quote]

The encyclical goes on to say:
[quote name='De Musica Sacra #71']The use of automatic instruments and machines, such as the automatic organ, phonograph, radio, tape or wire recorders, and other similar machines, is absolutely forbidden in liturgical functions and private devotions, whether they are held inside or outside the church, even if these machines be used only to transmit sermons or sacred music, or to substitute for the singing of the choir or faithful, or even just to support it.[/quote]

It is clear that mechanical amplification of instrumentation is not acceptable.

[indescribable]

does "private devotions" mean one's own prayer time?

[phatcatholic]

i'm gonna play devil's advocate for a moment b/c i can anticipate the objections to what you have presented and i want to know the responses. so...

1. could it be that these earlier liturgical documents are more reflective of the time in which they were written and not necessarily meant to proscribe universal regulations on music for all time?

2. the restriction on amplification just seems like one of those odd disciplines that used to be a big deal but isn't anymore, like Jews being required to wear distinctive clothing to distinguish them from Christians.

3. amplification also seems to fall w/in that part of the liturgy that can change and develop over time.

4. isn't the appropriateness of an instrument rather subjective? what in one century was unacceptable is often completely acceptable in the next. also, what is acceptable in one culture is not always acceptable in another. are drums surely apt for worship in Africa?

[scardella]

I'm sitting this one out...

[ThyWillBeDone]

I do not know what the documents would say about it but the music director at my parish has used a rain stick on several occasions and well that is just plan strange.
God Bless

[journeyman]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1005183' date='Jun 13 2006, 08:41 PM']
I wonder what the "liturgical music director" would say/do if I sent her that...
[/quote]

mine wasn't interested . . . Pope Gregory ruined music for several hundred years . . . is more or less a quote

[missionseeker]

^ nice quote.

Edited June 16, 2006 by missionseeker

[Cam42]

[quote name='indescribable' post='1005330' date='Jun 14 2006, 12:21 AM']
does "private devotions" mean one's own prayer time?
[/quote]

No. Private devotions are those devotions which are not part of the Apostolic times. Most devotions are techincally private. The rosary, the Divine Mercy Chaplet, all novenas, the scapular, the Leonine prayers, etc......all are private devotions which the Church recognizes as having merit.

In a liturgical setting, the only instrumentation that may be used is that which naturally produces sound and is either apt or can be rendered apt by the Church.

If you are engaging in a non-liturgical function, such as praying the rosary privately, then it is acceptable.

What DMS is speaking of is the official liturgical actions of the Church (ie. The Mass, The Liturgy of the Word, The Divine Office) and any private devotions that are prayed publicly.

For example, if you are praying the Divine Mercy Chaplet at home and you have a CD of it, then it is fine to use the CD for motivation or as a means of helping you to praise God. If, however, you are engaging in the same private devotion in a church or with others publicly, then it becomes a para-liturgical action and the criteria for using instrumentation and amplification, etc. apply.

[Cam42]

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='1005333' date='Jun 14 2006, 12:37 AM']
i'm gonna play devil's advocate for a moment b/c i can anticipate the objections to what you have presented and i want to know the responses. so...

1. could it be that these earlier liturgical documents are more reflective of the time in which they were written and not necessarily meant to proscribe universal regulations on music for all time?

2. the restriction on amplification just seems like one of those odd disciplines that used to be a big deal but isn't anymore, like Jews being required to wear distinctive clothing to distinguish them from Christians.

3. amplification also seems to fall w/in that part of the liturgy that can change and develop over time.

4. isn't the appropriateness of an instrument rather subjective? what in one century was unacceptable is often completely acceptable in the next. also, what is acceptable in one culture is not always acceptable in another. are drums surely apt for worship in Africa?
[/quote]

1. That is not necessarily the case. These documents were not written 1000 years ago. They are all 20th century documents. Unless the Church has definitvely and actually written something directly to lax or to change the disciplinary nature, then the encylicals are still binding as a matter of obedience to the teaching of the papacy.

All of these documents were written within 50 years of Humanae Vitae. So, because Humane Vitae was written in the 60s; does that mean that it is outdated? No, of course not. But that encyclical is a matter of discipline, too and not infallible. Same logic applies.

2. No. Again, I believe that this is a lack of respect due the papacy, simply because in the 60s it was a "sign 'o the times" to be disobedient and that mentality has spread into today.

3. Again, you are asking the same question in a different way. See answers given above.

4. Yes, it is subjective, but the subjectiveness is not ours, it is the Church's. We are not the mind of the Church and we are not the deciders of what constitutes the Liturgy. We participate in an objective truth, namely the unbloody sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. We don't get to decide how this takes place, the Church does. That is why there are rubrics. If we were able to simply say what you are saying, then polka Masses, clown Masses, women preachers, 9 Zillion EMoHC's, and the like would be licit.

As far as the African aspect, Card. Arinze has spoken about this. He has also spoken about the aptness and responsibility of the Liturgy.


[quote name='Zenit.org']
The Mass is a moment of reflection and encounter with God, rather than a form of entertainment, says Cardinal Francis Arinze.

In an interview with Inside the Vatican magazine, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments made a comprehensive assessment of the recent Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist and of developments in liturgical practice 40 years after the Second Vatican Council.

[b]Regarding "music in the liturgy, we should start by saying that Gregorian music is the Church's precious heritage," he said. "It should stay. It should not be banished. If therefore in a particular diocese or country, no one hears Gregorian music anymore, then somebody has made a mistake somewhere."

However, "the Church is not saying that everything should be Gregorian music," the cardinal clarified. "There is room for music which respects that language, that culture, that people. There is room for that too, and the present books say that is a matter for the bishops' conference, because it generally goes beyond the boundaries of one diocese.

"The ideal thing is that the bishops would have a liturgical music commission which looks at the wording and the music of the hymns. And when the commission is satisfied, judgment is brought to the bishops for approval, in the name of the rest of the conference."

What should not be the case, insists the Nigerian cardinal, is "individuals just composing anything and singing it in church. This is not right at all -- no matter how talented the individual is. That brings us to the question of the instruments to be used.

"The local church should be conscious that church worship is not really the same as what we sing in a bar, or what we sing in a convention for youth. Therefore it should influence the type of instrument used, the type of music used."[/b]

Suitability

"I will not now pronounce and say never guitar; that would be rather severe," Cardinal Arinze added. "But much of guitar music may not be suitable at all for the Mass. Yet, it is possible to think of some guitar music that would be suitable, not as the ordinary one we get every time, [but with] the visit of a special group, etc."

"The judgment would be left to the bishops of the area. It is wiser that way," he pointed out. "Also, because there are other instruments in many countries which are not used in Italy or in Ireland, for instance.

"People don't come to Mass in order to be entertained. They come to Mass to adore God, to thank him, to ask pardon for sins, and to ask for other things that they need."

"When they want entertainment, they know where to go -- parish hall, theater, presuming that their entertainment is acceptable from a moral theological point of view," added the cardinal, 73, who this year celebrated the 40th anniversary of his episcopal ordination.

The synod

In the course of the interview, Cardinal Arinze, who in the recent Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist was one of the delegate presidents, subsequently made a summary of this ecclesial event which gathered 252 bishops.

Speaking of the positive points of the synod, the cardinal said there were many: "Strengthening our faith in the holy Eucharist. No new doctrine, but freshness of expression of our Eucharistic faith. Encouragement in the celebration in the sense of good attention; a celebration which shows faith."

"The synod thanked priests for their ministry and also deacons and others who assist at the celebration of Mass, and underlined the importance of Eucharistic adoration outside Mass which has its fruits in the Mass itself because the Mass is the supreme act of adoration," he continued.

"But the sacrament does not finish after Mass," the cardinal observed. "Christ is in the tabernacle to be brought to the sick, to receive our visits of adoration, praise, love, supplication. The synod fathers did not only talk about adoration -- they did adoration, every day. Christ exposed in the monstrance in the chapel near the Synod Hall, one hour in the morning, one hour in the afternoon."

"The synod also stressed the importance of good preparation for the holy Eucharist; to receive Communion," he noted. "Therefore, confession of sins, for those who are in mortal sin and in any case encouraging the sacrament of penance as a way of growing in fidelity to Christ. And also that not everybody is fit to receive holy Communion, so those who are not fit should not receive."

Protestant view

Referring to a negative tendency in the Western world, the cardinal revealed that an increasing number of Catholics have "a more Protestant concept of the Eucharist, seeing it mainly as a symbol."

The "synod fathers recognize that many Catholics don't have correct faith in the real presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist," he said. "This was mentioned in one of the propositions as well.

"It was recognized so much that many of the synod fathers suggested that there be themes suggested for homilies on Sundays. Seeing that for many Catholics the Sunday homily is about the only religious instruction they get in a week, the synod fathers suggested that the four major areas of Catholic faith should be covered by the homily in a three-year cycle."

The four areas correspond to the parts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

"First part, what we believe," Cardinal Arinze said. "Second part, how we worship, i.e., sacraments. Third part, what we live, life in Christ, so the moral law, the Ten Commandments, the Christian life lived; and the fourth part, prayer."

Therefore, "although the homily should be on the Scripture readings and the other liturgical texts, some way has to be found to cover the whole area of Catholic faith in a period of three years because many Catholics are really ignorant of fundamental matters. That is a fact nobody can deny."

Showmanship

"Vatican II brought many good things but everything has not been positive, and the synod recognized that there have been shadows," Cardinal Arinze acknowledged.

"There has been a bit of neglect of the holy Eucharist outside Mass," he said. "A lot of ignorance. A lot of temptations to showmanship for the priest who celebrates facing the people.

"If he is not very disciplined he will soon become a performer. He may not realize it, but he will be projecting himself rather than projecting Christ. Indeed it is very demanding, the altar facing the people. Then even those who read the First and Second Reading can engage in little tactics that make them draw attention to themselves and distract the people.

"So there are problems. However, some of the problems were not caused by Vatican II, but they were caused by children of the Church after Vatican II. Some of them talking of Vatican II push their own agenda. We have to watch that. People pushing their own agenda, justifying it as the 'spirit of Vatican II.'"

The Vatican prefect continued: "So, if only people would be more faithful to what has been laid down, not by people who just like to make laws for other people, but what follows from what we believe. 'Lex orandi, Lex credendi.' It is our faith that directs our prayer life, and if we genuflect in front of the tabernacle it is because we believe that Jesus is there, and is God."

Abuses not new

Contrary to what many think, he said, "even when there was the Tridentine Mass there were abuses. Many Catholics did not know, because they did not know Latin! So when the priest garbled the words, they were not aware of this.

"Therefore, the most important area is faith and fidelity to that faith, and a faithful reading of the original texts, and their faithful translations, so that people celebrate knowing that the liturgy is the public prayer of the Church."

[b]Cardinal Arinze concluded that the liturgy "is not the property of one individual, therefore an individual does not tinker with it, but makes the effort to celebrate it as Holy Mother Church wants. When that happens, the people are happy, they feel nourished. Their faith grows, their faith is strengthened. They go home happy and willing to come back next Sunday."[/b]
[/quote]

[quote name=' Vicesimus Quintus Annus (Pope John Paul II)']Since liturgical celebrations are not private acts but "celebrations of the Church, the 'sacrament of unity"', their regulation is dependent solely upon the hierarchical authority of the Church. The liturgy belongs to the whole body of the Church. It is for this reason that it is not permitted to anyone, even the priest, or any group, to add, subtract or change anything whatsoever on their own initiative. Fidelity to the rites and to the authentic texts of the Liturgy is a requirement of the lex orandi [law of prayer], which must always be in conformity with the lex credendi [law of belief]. A lack of fidelity on this point may even affect the very validity of the sacraments.[/quote]

Sounds like the encyclicals written in previous decades.

Here is something that Cardinal Arinze said a while back:

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/SeriesSearchprog.asp?SeriesID=-6892288&NewList=&T1=world~over"]Francis Cardinal Arinze #3[/url] This starts at 28:40 of #3.

[phatcatholic]

thanks Cam

[missionseeker]

Thanks Cam and phatcatholic.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='1005333' date='Jun 13 2006, 10:37 PM']
i'm gonna play devil's advocate for a moment b/c i can anticipate the objections to what you have presented and i want to know the responses. so...

1. could it be that these earlier liturgical documents are more reflective of the time in which they were written and not necessarily meant to proscribe universal regulations on music for all time?

2. the restriction on amplification just seems like one of those odd disciplines that used to be a big deal but isn't anymore, like Jews being required to wear distinctive clothing to distinguish them from Christians.

3. amplification also seems to fall w/in that part of the liturgy that can change and develop over time.

4. isn't the appropriateness of an instrument rather subjective? what in one century was unacceptable is often completely acceptable in the next. also, what is acceptable in one culture is not always acceptable in another. are drums surely apt for worship in Africa?
[/quote]

I don't see why this wouldn't fall under the changeable discipline category. But I think the important thing is that it hasn't been changed yet, has it? Maybe it can be changed. But if there is no new documentation saying otherwise is fine, then doesn't the current rule stand? Just my thought.

Good stuff Cam. That was very interesting, I'm going to save that info if you don't mind.