Concerning Instruments At Mass...

[Cam42]

Now, if the employment of the piano is forbidden, as are drums, cymbals, bells and the like, how can it fufill the mandate of Sacrosanctum Concilium #120? If there is to be an organic growth, the logical answer is that it cannot.

By common acception, the piano is considered to be a secular instrument. And that is forbidden for use in the Church because it cannot be rendered apt, precisely because it is a secular istrument, much like the guitar or much like drums, cymbals, bells and the like.

Here is what the Church teaches about aptness;
[quote name='De Musica Sacra #60']The following principles for the use of musical instruments in the sacred liturgy are to be recalled:

a) Because of the nature, sanctity, and dignity of the sacred liturgy, the playing of any musical instrument should be as perfect as possible. It would be preferable to omit the use of instruments entirely (whether it be the organ only, or any other instrument), than to play them in a manner unbecoming their purpose. As a general rule it is better to do something well, however modest, than to attempt something more elaborate without the proper means.

b) The difference between sacred, and secular music must be taken into consideration. Some musical instruments, such as the classic organ, are naturally appropriate for sacred music; others, such as string instruments which are played with a bow, are easily adapted to liturgical use. But there are some instruments which, by common estimation, are so associated with secular music that they are not at all adaptable for sacred use.[/quote]

Looking to the last sentence of paragraph b; we see that some instruments are so associated with secular music that they are not at all adaptable for sacred use. The piano would fall into this category. How? Ask Barry Manilow, Lionel Ritchie, or Vanessa Carlton or any host of secular musicians. The piano is more recognizable through them than through the Church.

However, the more stable aspect of this is that Tra Le Sollectudini is the prohibitor of the piano and if Sacrosanctum Concilium is read and applied with tradition and Tradition in mind, then the piano cannot be considered apt nor can bells, drums and cymbals.

The documents documents that I provided 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.

[quote name='Inside the Vatican']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.

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."

Suitability

"I will not now pronounce and say never guitar; that would be rather severe," Cardinal Arinze added. [b]"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,[/b] [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."

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."[/quote]

Here is something that Cardinal Arinze said awhile back:
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/SeriesSearchprog.asp?SeriesID=-6892288&NewList=&T1=world~over"]Cardinal Arinze #3[/url] This starts at 28:40.

[quote name='Sacrosanctum Concilium #120']In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.[/quote]

De Musica Sacra #60 quoted above.

[quote name='De Musica Sacra #61']The principal musical instrument for solemn liturgical ceremonies of the Latin Church has been and remains the classic pipe organ.[/quote]

[quote name='Tra Le Sollecitudini #2']....still these forms must be subordinated in such a manner to the general characteristics of sacred music that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good [here meaning, sacred in nature] on hearing them.[/quote]

[quote name='Tra Le Sollecitudini #3']Still, since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style which are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces.[/quote]

[quote name='De Musica Sacra #68']Other instruments besides the organ, especially the smaller bowed instruments, may be used during the liturgical functions, particularly on days of greater solemnity. These may be used together with the organ or without it, for instrumental numbers of for accompanying the singing. However, the following rules derived from the principles stated above (no.60) are to strictly observed:

a) the instruments are truly suitable for sacred use;

b) they are to be played with such seriousness, and religious devotion that every suggestion of raucous secular music is avoided, and the devotion of the faithful is fostered;

c) the director, organist, and other instrumentalists should be well trained in instrumental techniques, and the laws of sacred music.[/quote]

[quote name='GIRM 393b']While the organ is to be accorded pride of place, other wind, stringed, or percussion instruments may be used in liturgical services in the dioceses of the United States of America, according to longstanding local usage, provided they are truly apt for sacred use or can be rendered apt.[/quote]

Where do you think that the 1970 GIRM got it's understanding about music in the Liturgy? Could it be De Musica Sacra (the Encyclical on Sacred Music)? I think so. Also it could it be from Musica Sacra Diciplina, Musicam Sacram (post-conciliar document), and Tra Le Sollecitudini? I would think so, especially since those are the documents on music in the 20th century. I am not going back to the 7th century or the 12th. I am talking about modern documents here.

If, as Pius X insists, the liturgy is the primary source of the Christian life, everyone must take part in it to achieve salvation. Active participation is not an invention of our day; the Church throughout the ages constantly shared the life of Christ with its members in the Mass and the sacraments, the very actions of Christ Himself working through His Church and His priesthood. For each age the activities deemed by it to be useful in promoting that participation have varied according to the needs and ideas of the period. One cannot say that because the medieval period developed a chant that was largely the possession of monastic choirs, the congregations who listened were not actively participating. Perhaps not according to post-Vatican II standards, but one must carefully avoid the error of judging the past by the present and applying to former times criteria that seem valuable in our own times. Because Palestrina's polyphonic Masses require the singing of trained choirs, can one assume that non-choir members in the renaissance period were deprived of an active participation in the liturgy? No age could permit such a thing to happen and thus be deprived of the primary source of the spiritual life.

The Church is silent about the guitar specifically, but the smaller instruments should be bowed. And there should be avoidance of the suggestion of the secular music. Does the guitar do that? No, it doesn't, it conotates the secular much moreso than the instruments listed above.

[puellapaschalis]

I'd like to respond to Cam's quoting of the "banning of bands" in church in order to derive a ban on guitars: when reading his quotes from Tra Le Sollecitudini and how a band may be permitted during processions outside, it struck me that Pius X might mean some kind of marching, brass or wind band, neither of which have guitars in. So to say [i]"Pius X banned bands, and the main focus of a band is a guitar, thus Pius X banned guitars"[/i] doesn't seem to work with me because that kind of "band" probably didn't even exist in 1903.

I've no doubt that had they been around then, he'd have banned what we understand as a "band" now outright. Or perhaps it just wouldn't have crossed his mind to even mention it because the trash that comes out of most bands these days could only be called music at a long, long stretch from any decent point of view. But from what I understand, he can't have meant something like the Beatles.

But having said that, I find it slightly odd that Pius X explicitly forbids pianos but not (according to my reasoning, and in any event it's not in the text) guitars, both of which most definitely were around at the turn of the 20thC. We're not even talking about electric guitars here - that was patented in the 1930s - what was around was simply acoustics. What's so diabolic about a piano? Was it only played in seedy Houses Of Sin? I hardly think so - we only need to look at the output of Baroque, Classical and Romantic composers (whose timelines bring us up to and in the case of Romanticism somewhat beyond 1903).

So I'm not certain that the context within which the piano was found could have been "moral" grounds if you like for banning it. Perhaps because it was only given a secular repertoire?

From Cappie's post (thanks, Cappie!) I understand that the organ was developed [i]specifically[/i] to support the Sacred Liturgy. It didn't have any secular genesis. Perhaps that, then, is the crucial difference between the organ and the piano from Pius X's point of view. The organ's entire existence has been dedicated to church services (although personally I'd want to sit up and wave Bach's Toccata's around here as counter-examples) but the piano hasn't.

However, what I understand from musicam sacram is that a secular origin isn't necessarily a bar to an instrument being somehow worthy to perform (in appropriate situations) in church. Why else would a flute be permitted, when a Pied Piper used one to cart off a village's worth of children? If that's so, then I'm not sure it's reasonable to allow some not-originally-holy instruments a place during the liturgy, but to forbid others simply because they had the unfortunate luck to exist when Pius X was around seems a bit mean.

Having blathered on thus far, I'll reiterate that I just prefer Greggors and Palestrina. Mmmmmm

Love and prayers,

PP

[be_thou_my_vision]

I'm sorry, but I don't see why this is such a big deal. I think God likes guitar. It can be very beautiful... just like a flute, piano, or harp. I just don't see why this is such a big issue. I don't mean to be a party pooper, but does it really matter what instruments we use if they are played respectfully? Doesn't it say somewhere is psalms "praise Him with timbrel and harp"??

[franciscanheart]

I'm not sure I agree that the piano is a secular instrument. I understand that some artists have used this beautiful instrument for their secular music but the piano has been around for ages. It has been used for a very long time - a time that outdates Barry Manilow and Lionel Ritchie by far. If in the next six years the organ is brought into secular music the way guitars and piano has been brought in, will we consider the organ an instrument of secular nature? No. So why do we make that exception with the piano?

Why are so many churches out of line with this teaching? I know if I brought this up at my parish it would be pushed aside as something too small to deal with when there were other, much more pressing matters with which to be dealt. I would be reprimanded for wasting someone's time or looked down upon for wanting to be in line with the teaching of the Church. Everything these days seems to revolve around money. Things that are sacred or that have to do with the sacred take little precedence over matters of financial nature.

The other day at a book club meeting the older women were talking about our monsignor. They were talking about how great he was and how orthodox he helped our church to be. He didn't care how many people spoke out against his thoughts, he held his ground. It wasn't until after he moved out of the head position (possibly out of the church completely and into the retirement home) that we established the guitar choir. It has been around for about 12 years and I don't see any sign of it ending.

We used to have a handbell choir but that died a long time ago. I'm not sure what happened with it. That would have been against church teaching as well, right?

I'm so amazed at how out of line SO many churches are. I know a lot of people would be really mean about the issue if it were brought up. It would seem 'overboard' or 'too strict' to a lot of people, I'm sure.

I've debated for several months now whether or not I should remain a part of the choir I am in now. I am in the guitar choir because it is, for lack of a better phrase, the easy choir. There are a couple of strong singers that really hold the group together but up until this choir season, there were no auditions. It is the 'lowest' of the choirs, to be sure. (Actually, there are only two choirs. We have cantors that sing the other Masses.) The other choir I'm pretty sure is an organ only choir. I don't recall ever seeing our director use the piano. The problem is I really don't think I'm up to par. They sing amazing pieces and I doubt I could be there without slowing them down. (Our schola guys are a part of this choir as well. Our schola is amazing.) So really the only reason (though I'm sure you haven't been able to tell thus far) for not dropping out of the guitar choir and TRYING for the other is because I'm afraid I'll be left with no place to go. I feel like I'll not have any place to sing and that'll be disappointing. I don't want to participate in something that is not aiding others in their heavenly experience but at the same time, I don't want to give up music completely (and this is my only music time right now).

puellapaschalis brings up a great point which aids me in mine. Lionel Richie was not around at the time of Pius X and so such references are irrelevant when speaking about Pius X's writings. I pretty much whole heartedly thumbs up the post by puellapaschalis. Good points...

BTW - I have my own reservations about guitars at Mass (though it may be due to abuses I've seen at my own church). My main 'fight' would be for the piano.

[puellapaschalis]

I left a choir/music group in my childhood parish because with the singers, guitarists, violinists, flutists, cellists and a few other things, I found myself worrying more about where the next piece of paper was more than what on earth was going on up on the sanctuary. To top it all off (you'll love this, Hughey), we sat right at the front of the church. I defected to a later Mass with an organ and choir, became an altar server and learnt how to thiruf like you'd never imagine.

My curiousity is peaked as to why Pius X banned the piano but not the guitar.

Longevity doesn't necessarily make something "non-secular". It's surely the usage that does that, right? I'd need to dig deep in my notes to read about the history of the piano to be sure, but something tells me it grew as a home instrument, for small spaces and an informal setting. Given all that I could understand it being shunned in comparison to the organ...but that still doesn't explain the silence about the guitar.

On the same hand but going in a different direction, whilst the organ may have started out as a "church thing" but there's a whole stackload of non-sacred music for it out there (so what if the Widor is played at St. Peter's now and then? I don't think that qualifies the piece as sacred music. It hardly supports anything liturgical other than perhaps the recessional).

Oh well. Time for a nap and perhaps some rest will sort out the fuzz in my head.

Love and prayers,

PP

[franciscanheart]

I'm not saying that longevity would change the secular title but rather that the longevity might prove it to have only recently entered the secular category. Given different pieces that are played on the organ during the processions, it would seem to me that the piano would not be so vile (as it concerns it's usage during the Mass).

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1075498' date='Sep 26 2006, 10:24 AM']
To top it all off (you'll love this, Hughey), we sat right at the front of the church.
[/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote name='hugheyforlife']I'm not sure I agree that the piano is a secular instrument...My main 'fight' would be for the piano.[/quote]

The easiest way to show you is to ask you (or anyone who can provide) to give me Catholic sacred musical texts written for the piano prior to the 1960's.

Remember, by common estimation the instrument in question must be proven apt for use in the Sacred Liturgy. The Piano, etc....have been most definitely defined as otherwise. Like I said the guitar is debatable, but the documents don't look to support guitar music very much.

[quote name='puellapaschalis']So to say "Pius X banned bands, and the main focus of a band is a guitar, thus Pius X banned guitars" doesn't seem to work with me because that kind of "band" probably didn't even exist in 1903.[/quote]

Probably? Or Certainly? When you add probably to the context, you leave open the door that the guitar may have been part of a band at the time, therefore there is a specific banning.

Also you ask;
[quote name='puellapaschalis']What's so diabolic about a piano?[/quote]

That is the wrong attitude. Just because something is not apt for the Sacred Liturgy doesn't mean that it is diabolic. It simply means that it is profane and not apt for use in said context.

[quote name='puellapaschalis']Why else would a flute be permitted, when a Pied Piper used one to cart off a village's worth of children?[/quote]

It is allowed because wind instruments are allowed. Last time I checked the flute was a wind instrument.

[quote name='puellapaschalis']If that's so, then I'm not sure it's reasonable to allow some not-originally-holy instruments a place during the liturgy, but to forbid others simply because they had the unfortunate luck to exist when Pius X was around seems a bit mean.[/quote]

Meanness really isn't the focus. What is the focus is that there are instruments which are apt for the Liturgy and there are those which are not. I don't see how one can be mean to a thing, at any rate. It is like saying, "You are being mean to that table."

[quote name='be_thou_my_vision']I don't mean to be a party pooper, but does it really matter what instruments we use if they are played respectfully?[/quote]

Of course it matters. Are we not to give GREATER glory to God? Yes. And if we simply use whatever we have around, then we are not giving GREATER glory to God, but simply praising God. Let us not forget what Pope St. Pius X, Francis Cardinal Arinze, et al., have said about the nobility of the Liturgy. There is pride of place and that must be taken into consideration.

[quote name='be_thou_my_vision']Doesn't it say somewhere is psalms "praise Him with timbrel and harp"??[/quote]

That is part of OT theology and accordingly the OT theology is to be taken in light of NT theology. The OT was fulfilled in the NT and the Sacred Liturgy is far more praiseworthy than OT praise and worship.

[quote name='hugheyforlife']Why are so many churches out of line with this teaching?[/quote]

One word. Abuse.

[quote name='puellapaschalis']My curiousity is peaked as to why Pius X banned the piano but not the guitar?[/quote]

Because the guitar was a minor instrument. The focus on the guitar as an instrument didn't really hit the mainstream until the 1930's. It didn't merit the same focus as the piano, which had been used for centuries by composers of note. However, notice that the composers didn't compose Sacred music for piano. That is why by common esitimation it was/is secular.

[franciscanheart]

Guitars are stringed instruments so as long as we're going along with the broad acceptance of wind and stringed instruments, guitars would be allowed. And what about the point where it says that other instruments are to be permitted in the United States?
[quote name='(GIRM 393b)']
While the organ is to be accorded pride of place, other wind, stringed, or percussion instruments may be used in liturgical services in the dioceses of the United States of America, according to longstanding local usage, provided they are truly apt for sacred use or can be rendered apt.[/quote]
What percussion would be permitted? I have mentioned tympanies several times. Would those fall under this category? It seems as though you are trying to limit this document only to its inspiration and not allowing for room where it says "other wind, stringed, or percussion instruments may be used... according to longstanding local usage.." and you are the one who gave it to us. When was all of this written? The piano has been used for quite some time. Has it not been played in Mass long enough to be considered longstanding local usage?

[quote name='Cam42' post='1075506' date='Sep 26 2006, 10:33 AM']
Because the guitar was a minor instrument. The focus on the guitar as an instrument didn't really hit the mainstream until the 1930's. It didn't merit the same focus as the piano, which had been used for centuries by composers of note. However, notice that the composers didn't compose Sacred music for piano. That is why by common esitimation it was/is secular.
[/quote]
But if we are to approach every instrument in that way, no instrument other than the organ would be permitted at Mass and that is obviously not what is stated to be allowed in the GIRM and a number of other sources you have provided.

[Cam42]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1075518' date='Sep 26 2006, 09:40 AM']
Guitars are stringed instruments so as long as we're going along with the broad acceptance of wind and stringed instruments, guitars would be allowed. And what about the point where it says that other instruments are to be permitted in the United States?[/quote]

Are guitars apt? If so, how? And do guitars meet the critieria of the universal Church? If there is a dispute and it goes to Rome, Rome would speak. I believe that Rome has spoken in the person of Cardinal Arinze and he was not exactly supportive of the guitar as to the solemnity of the instrument or the times in which it should be used. Actually, his words were not supportive at all.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1075518' date='Sep 26 2006, 09:40 AM']What percussion would be permitted? I have mentioned tympanies several times. Would those fall under this category? It seems as though you are trying to limit this document only to its inspiration and not allowing for room where it says "other wind, stringed, or percussion instruments may be used... according to longstanding local usage.." and you are the one who gave it to us. When was all of this written? The piano has been used for quite some time. Has it not been played in Mass long enough to be considered longstanding local usage?[/quote]

Tympani are traditionally accepted as because of the tunablity of the instrument.

Taking the quote in context, it would seem that stringed instruments would not include the guitar, precisely because the guitar is not mentioned in any other document, however, other stringed intruments were/are.

And speaking of the length of time 40+ years in the 2000 year history of the Church certainly is not considered longstanding. I would say that it would be the direct opposite. However, I would suggest that 1000+ years of the organ and 400+ years of orchestral pieces would qualify as longstanding.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1075518' date='Sep 26 2006, 09:40 AM']But if we are to approach every instrument in that way, no instrument other than the organ would be permitted at Mass and that is obviously not what is stated to be allowed in the GIRM and a number of other sources you have provided.
[/quote]

I disagree. Other instruments are allowed for. Other instruments can be rendered and are apt. However, I know for certain that the piano is not and that the guitar by ommission is not apt nor is there anything that states that it can be rendered apt.

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1075506' date='Sep 26 2006, 05:33 PM']Probably? Or Certainly? When you add probably to the context, you leave open the door that the guitar may have been part of a band at the time, therefore there is a specific banning.[/quote]

Ok, I'll stick my neck out and say certainly. I'm about 99% sure that you didn't have bands in the shape of guitar-bass-keyboards-drum kit at the end of the 19thC. I invite you to find a counter-example to which we can apply Pius X's attitude to "bands".

[quote name='Cam42' post='1075506' date='Sep 26 2006, 05:33 PM']It is allowed because wind instruments are allowed. Last time I checked the flute was a wind instrument.[/quote]

So is the qualifying factor whether the instrument is considered "secular" or "non-secular", or is it how exactly the sound is produced? Are secular wind instruments allowed? Come to think of it, are there any non-secular wind instruments (I'm excluding the human voice here for obvious reasons) other than the (pipe) organ?

[quote name='Cam42' post='1075506' date='Sep 26 2006, 05:33 PM']Meanness really isn't the focus. What is the focus is that there are instruments which are apt for the Liturgy and there are those which are not. I don't see how one can be mean to a thing, at any rate. It is like saying, "You are being mean to that table."[/quote]

All right, I'm guilty of anthropomorphosising (and probably spelling errors too). I'll leave it to pointing to the gap in reasoning.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1075506' date='Sep 26 2006, 05:33 PM']Because the guitar was a minor instrument. The focus on the guitar as an instrument didn't really hit the mainstream until the 1930's. It didn't merit the same focus as the piano, which had been used for centuries by composers of note. However, notice that the composers didn't compose Sacred music for piano. That is why by common esitimation it was/is secular.[/quote]

[url="http://www.musicated.com/CGCL/music/CGCL_chron.html"]This list[/url] would suggest that whilst perhaps the guitar didn't (doesn't?) enjoy the coverage the piano did (does), it wasn't a "minor instrument". The repertoire is large and it's been a popular instrument for longer than most people might imagine.

FInally, I'd want to point out that if string instruments are permitted then not only should the guitar be permitted (assuming we're operating on the criterion of "how is the sound produced"), but the piano should also be so, since it's also a stringed instrument.

Love and prayers,

PP

[Cam42]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1075539' date='Sep 26 2006, 10:15 AM']
Ok, I'll stick my neck out and say certainly. I'm about 99% sure that you didn't have bands in the shape of guitar-bass-keyboards-drum kit at the end of the 19thC. I invite you to find a counter-example to which we can apply Pius X's attitude to "bands".[/quote]

The impotice is not to prove the words of an encyclical, but rather to disprove them. I stand by the words of Pope St. Pius X.


[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1075539' date='Sep 26 2006, 10:15 AM']So is the qualifying factor whether the instrument is considered "secular" or "non-secular", or is it how exactly the sound is produced? Are secular wind instruments allowed? Come to think of it, are there any non-secular wind instruments (I'm excluding the human voice here for obvious reasons) other than the (pipe) organ?[/quote]

Partially. If something cannot be rendered apt then it is not to be allowed. Those instruments by common acception are not allowed. That much is clear. And the organ is to have pride of place.

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1075539' date='Sep 26 2006, 10:15 AM']All right, I'm guilty of anthropomorphosising (and probably spelling errors too). I'll leave it to pointing to the gap in reasoning.
[url="http://www.musicated.com/CGCL/music/CGCL_chron.html"]This list[/url] would suggest that whilst perhaps the guitar didn't (doesn't?) enjoy the coverage the piano did (does), it wasn't a "minor instrument". The repertoire is large and it's been a popular instrument for longer than most people might imagine.[/quote]

How many of those composed Catholic Masses for the guitar before the 1960's? None. That is my point.

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1075539' date='Sep 26 2006, 10:15 AM']FInally, I'd want to point out that if string instruments are permitted then not only should the guitar be permitted (assuming we're operating on the criterion of "how is the sound produced"), but the piano should also be so, since it's also a stringed instrument.
[/quote]

And that is your opinion. However, it does not speak to anything of substance. The Church has actually spoken about the piano and it is expressly forbidden. Also, speaking to the guitar, there is not a preponderance of the evidence which supports the position that it can be rendered apt for Liturgical use.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1075534' date='Sep 26 2006, 11:08 AM']
Are guitars apt? If so, how? And do guitars meet the critieria of the universal Church? If there is a dispute and it goes to Rome, Rome would speak. I believe that Rome has spoken in the person of Cardinal Arinze and he was not exactly supportive of the guitar as to the solemnity of the instrument or the times in which it should be used. Actually, his words were not supportive at all.
[/quote]
But we are not speaking about the universal church in this case. At the point that we define standards to the United States, I assume that we are now speaking of what is permissable here that might not be tolerated or accepted elsewhere in the world.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1075550' date='Sep 26 2006, 11:37 AM']
The impotice is not to prove the words of an encyclical, but rather to disprove them. I stand by the words of Pope St. Pius X.
[/quote]
PP brings up a valid point, however, and it seems as though you are side-stepping it. Really all you're doing is forcing PP to put in a little more effort to disprove your stance. Surely you don't assume that Pius X was talking about bands with drum kits and banjos.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1075550' date='Sep 26 2006, 11:37 AM']
The Church has actually spoken about the piano and it is expressly forbidden. Also, speaking to the guitar, there is not a preponderance of the evidence which supports the position that it can be rendered apt for Liturgical use.
[/quote]
Nor is there much to support to other position. It seems to me that although some seem hesitant, there has been no statement that is strictly for or against the instrument. It can be said that we are discouraged from playing this instrument in Mass but it cannot be said that we have been told not to play it.

[Norseman82]

[color="#33CC00"]If you ask me, [i]every[/i] instrument is noisy.[/color]

[Cam42]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1075578' date='Sep 26 2006, 11:07 AM']
But we are not speaking about the universal church in this case. At the point that we define standards to the United States, I assume that we are now speaking of what is permissable here that might not be tolerated or accepted elsewhere in the world.[/quote]

When something is not clarified by the local Churches, ie. the absence of a specific instrument, then it returns to the universal Church to define it or to omit it. Since the universal Church omits it, it should not be used until it is rendered apt. The Church normally does not define in the negative, but rather the positive, especially in matters of discipline.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1075578' date='Sep 26 2006, 11:07 AM']PP brings up a valid point, however, and it seems as though you are side-stepping it. Really all you're doing is forcing PP to put in a little more effort to disprove your stance. Surely you don't assume that Pius X was talking about bands with drum kits and banjos.[/quote]

It really is a moot point. All of the instruments of a band are listed are they not? Keyboards (ie pianos), electronic means are also to be omitted per a later document, one of the one's listed if I am not mistaken. Drums are also part of this ban.

[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]

[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]


As for forcing the issue, I am. No dispute. However, the Church is clear about what she has taught, it seems that you all are expecting me to say what the Church doesn't say. However, the words of the Church are clear. Where is the disconnect?

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1075578' date='Sep 26 2006, 11:07 AM']Nor is there much to support to other position. It seems to me that although some seem hesitant, there has been no statement that is strictly for or against the instrument. It can be said that we are discouraged from playing this instrument in Mass but it cannot be said that we have been told not to play it.
[/quote]

Nor is there much support to the other position? Huh? All have done is show support for the other position!!!!! What parts don't you understand? I have shown many examples. Also, I will say it again, the Church normally does not teach by negative means, but rather teaches by affirmation. If the Church doesn't affirm something then it is to be omitted. This idealogy is clearly stated in the documentation provided. When it says that something must be apt or can be rendered apt then that is what it means. When it means that there are those instruments which cannot be so done, then it means that too. The guitar, because it is most closely related to drums, piano, etc....and not related to the organ, wind instruments and smaller stringed instruments played with a bow; it would be commonly accepted to be inept for use in the Sacred Liturgy.

[puellapaschalis]

There are plenty of other types of "band" out there that contain neither drums, nor guitars, nor electronic keyboards. My point regarding this was that Pius X, because of his historical context, cannot have been talking about a rock-band. Nor, barring some gift of seeing the future, could he have forseen what a rock-band would be and thus have intentionally used the word "band" as a cover all term to include guitars (and thus excuse him from mentioning those instruments explicitly in his document). I don't think that the boundaries of historical context - in whichever text we're looking at - can be ignored.

I'll reiterate [i]again[/i] where my preferences lie qua liturgical music: G&P. I don't necessarily disagree with the case you're arguing, Cam. What I'm trying to deal with is the way you've used Pius X's document to derive a conclusion - I find that derivation unreasonable and I've outlined my reasons for that several times in this thread. I don't find the point "moot" and I haven't seen anything convincing to show my that my objection is so.

The issue about pianos is one I'd be happy to let lie if it didn't seem to be quite short-sighted. From what I gather from what you've said, the major objection to a piano being used in church is that it is a secular instrument. Why is it a secular instrument? Because there isn't a sacred music repertoire for it.

You cite over a millenium of organ heritage and four hundred years of orchestral heritage as support for this, but in four hundred years' time the guitar (assuming we count from the 1960's and that the standards of composition for contemporary liturgical music continues to rise as it has over the last twenty years) will have that same heritage as the orchestra has now, and in a thousand years it will have the same heritage that the organ currently enjoys. What would have happened if, three hundred and fifty years ago, the Pope of the time had decided that the orchestra was a secular instrument - a [i]band[/i], even - and that because it didn't have the six hundrend year heritage of the organ, it should be forbidden in church music?

It's for this reason that with the possible exception of the organ, I'll maintain (or at least would like to maintain: that's partly why I've valued this thread so much, as it's helped me crystallise my thoughts) that the human voice is the sole instrument definitively given to us by God to sing His praises and give Him glory, and that [i]that[/i] should have pride of place when it comes to music in the liturgy, to be preferred above all accompanied pieces and instrumental solos. I'll happily play down the organ's significance as it helps to take away this historical relativism.

In terms of anything else, I'll point to the [i]development[/i] - for that's what it clearly has been - of the organ and orchestra to forsee a possible similar [i]development[/i] of some other instruments recently or currently viewed as secular to a point where they are no longer considered secular and thus appropriate for use in church. Had the development of the organ and orchestra been nipped in the bud a few hundred years ago, our liturgical heritage would be poorer for it. I believe there is a possibility that by over-enthusiastic pruning so early on in an instrument's development, future enrichment of the Church's liturgical heritage will be lost.

Love and prayers,

PP