Concerning Instruments At Mass...

[Cam42]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1075811' date='Sep 26 2006, 02:42 PM']
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
[/quote]

Again, all of this is quite nice, as far as your subjective opinion is concerned. However, the Church doesn't work based upon subjective opinion. It works based upon objective fact.

FACT:
The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like. (TLS #19)

FACT:
It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the place-provided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ. (TLS #20)

FACT:
"But much of guitar music may not be suitable at all for the Mass." (Francis Cardinal Arinze; Prefect for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments)

FACT:
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. (SC #120)

FACT:
The principal musical instrument for solemn liturgical ceremonies of the Latin Church has been and remains the classic pipe organ. (DMS #61)

FACT:
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. (TLS #3)

FACT:
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. (DMS #68)

FACT:
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. (GIRM #393b)

These are all facts. These are all defined positions of the Church or informed positions of Prefects of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. I am not simply telling you what I would like to see nor am I simply projecting my viewpoint into the discussion.

Regardless of what the semantics of the word "band" is (thank you Bill Clinton), but rather it is indicative of the understanding that Modernism is to be combated in the Sacred Liturgy. The truth of the matter is that while the Pope-Saint most certainly doesn't mean KISS or Def Lepard, he is speaking of the people who held their esteem of the day. Those types of music for his day were not allowed, and through time, neither should those types be allowed today. It would seem that you are projecting just as much as I am being accused of.

What is at issue is that there are certain instruments that are apt and there are certain instruments which can be rendered apt. It is not up to you nor is it up to me to determine what is apt, but rather to accept what the Church teaches and until the Church deems said instrument to be so, abide by the fact that it is not. The Church has not deemed the guitar to be apt and it has most certainly determined the the piano is not apt.

If you really want to start splitting hairs, I would posit that many of the churches today employ a musical style that is in direct contradiction to Tra Le Sollecitudini #3. If that is the case then they should be stopped immediately and removed from the life of the Church as they are not fitting for Divine Worship, based upon the encyclical writings of a saint, who was combatting Modernism.

While your opinion is respected, it is simply your opinion. I have shown why certain instruments have been left out, precisely because tehy are not rendered apt and why certain instruments are allowed, because they are apt for the Sacred Liturgy.

I am sorry that you don't like the reasoning, but it is the mind of the Church and not mine which makes these statements, I am simply supporting what the Church has already stated.

[puellapaschalis]

Very well. I don't feel you've answered my objections to the reasoning (once again: not necessarily the conclusion). Whether you can't or won't isn't for me to worry about, but I don't think there's much point in me trying to carry on with this discussion. However, thanks for participating thus far: I've learnt much about many things from this exchange.

Love and prayers,

PP

[Cam42]

fair enough.

[franciscanheart]

Though I was not active in the last of this discussion, I too have learned a lot. I thank both Cappie and Cam for their participation as well as the other contributors here. I think it is important that we are all aware of what our Church teaches, even in these matters which, at times, seem trivial to many. It is our responsibility to adhere to the teachings and to keep our Church holy. Mass is so important and we should do everything in our power to have it celebrated in the correct manner. For truly, the Mass is a celebration of the Eucharist that involves not only us on earth but all of Heaven as well.

May God bless each of you abundantly now and always! Be holy.

[franciscanheart]

If you would like to make any further comments on the contents of this thread, please see [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=58703&st=0&#entry1088661"]this post[/url]. Thank you.


Thread Closed.