Concerning Instruments at Mass - Part II

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093105' date='Oct 16 2006, 02:00 PM']There are a couple of things that need to be said, first, I am not nuts. I have spent many years studying this very topic and hughey, I think that you can tell Michael that if he'd like to register and hash this out, I would love to do so.
[/quote]
First, Michael didn't call you nuts. Technically, I did. He made a comment about the whole population of people that like to convince others that such things as pianos and guitars are innappropriate for worship and condemned by the Vatican. It really wasn't even a complete comment as there were three of us discussing the matter (two directors and myself) and we tend to talk over each other.

Secondly, Michael isn't the type to join a message board and debate with the likes of you about musical practices in the Church. He's busy in a hospital caring for sick and dying people and playing the organ for Masses, funerals, and other things at our church. Basically, he has no time for stuff like phatmass. (I doubt though, even if he did have the time, that he would care to sit and debate with someone he doesn't know and who does not have any direct influence in musical matters in the Church, over these or other documents. If you knew him in person he might have some fun and debate with you but I doubt you would ever reach a conclusion. He does more productive things with his time.)

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093105' date='Oct 16 2006, 02:00 PM']
Who is in charge of the music in your parish? Michael or the pastor?
[/quote]
Our pastor, a canon lawyer, is in charge of all things in the parish. Michael is under our pastor.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093105' date='Oct 16 2006, 02:00 PM']
But is mine to judge and it offended me. I spent years living with one of the WORLD'S foremost musicologists and I formally studied the Liturgy and Ceremonies while in school. That is where my viewpoint comes from. Who are you to simply dismiss it based on some guy named Michael.
[/quote]
Some guy named Michael is a person who is under the direction of a canon lawyer and also studied Liturgy and Ceremonies in school. Given the amount of schooling he has received in liturgical music, your dismissal of him is a bit quick. You do not know him, therefore you do not trust his opinion.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093105' date='Oct 16 2006, 02:00 PM']
Fortunately for you the Church doesn't see it that way......perhaps more catechesis is needed.
[/quote]
How does that make me fortunate?

[Cam42]

Ummm, hughey......

I only asked Michael to sign up. The rest of my post was directed to you, unless otherwise noted.

[quote]He made a comment about the whole population of people that like to convince others that such things as pianos and guitars are innappropriate for worship and condemned by the Vatican.[/quote]

Since pianos are condemned, I would hope that his comment supports what I posted. I have posted it multiple times. Tra Le Sollectudini #19.

[quote]Secondly, Michael isn't the type to join a message board and debate with the likes of you about musical practices in the Church. He's busy in a hospital caring for sick and dying people and playing the organ for Masses, funerals, and other things at our church.[/quote]

Are you assuming that "the likes of me" are not educated enough to hold a conversation? Are you assuming that I am simply sitting in a cave and don't do anything for my parish? Are you assuming that I am not busy with apostolic works? Those are some pretty big assumptions!!!!

[quote]Basically, he has no time for stuff like phatmass. (I doubt though, even if he did have the time, that he would care to sit and debate with someone he doesn't know and who does not have any direct influence in musical matters in the Church, over these or other documents. If you knew him in person he might have some fun and debate with you but I doubt you would ever reach a conclusion. He does more productive things with his time.)[/quote]

Are you saying that people who come here and catechize are wasting their time? I strongly suggest that you recant this, you are going to offend many more people than just me.....You are sitting here debating with me....and last time I checked, you don't know me.....however, I look at this site as a means of projecting the knowledge that I have of the Church and as an apologetics tool. I am sure that many more people who come here feel the same way.

[quote]Our pastor, a canon lawyer, is in charge of all things in the parish. Michael is under our pastor.[/quote]

What does Canon Law have to do with Liturgical sensiblities? They are mutually exclusive, ON PURPOSE. There is Canon Law and Liturgical Law. I would hope, though, that someone with his advanced degrees would support the Liturgical Law.

[quote]Some guy named Michael is a person who is under the direction of a canon lawyer and also studied Liturgy and Ceremonies in school. Given the amount of schooling he has received in liturgical music, your dismissal of him is a bit quick. You do not know him, therefore you do not trust his opinion.[/quote]

That is great for Michael. Then he and I have the same degrees. Whoo Hoo. And my dismissal of him is based upon your caracature of him. Based upon your view of him, he doesn't follow the documentation of the Church. Any Liturgist worth his salt would recognize Tra Le Sollectudini, etc. and follow their directives.

I don't know him, but I also don't know his opinion, unless you are giving it for him in an authentic manner, then yes, I don't trust him.

Why don't you show me where my defense of right thinking of the Liturgy fails and I will relent. Until then, I will stand by the teachings of the Church and I will stand by the posts that I have made.

[quote]How does that make me fortunate?[/quote]

Because regardless of what you have been exposed to, the teachings and documentation of the Church have not changed and are very clear.

[scardella]

I've split up Cam's statements that I'd like to reply to into numbers for easy rebuttals.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093105' date='Oct 16 2006, 03:00 PM']
1. The Church is clear, despite what Scardella and Michael would like to think.

2. Also age of the document doesn't have one thing to do with the validity and binding of said document. That is a mistake to assume that because a Council took place ALL the other documentation on the subject is now moot.

3. I have simply given what the Church teaches then I have defended them. I don't want to be a lawyer.
But is mine to judge and it offended me. I spent years living with one of the WORLD'S foremost musicologists and I formally studied the Liturgy and Ceremonies while in school. That is where my viewpoint comes from. Who are you to simply dismiss it based on some guy named Michael.

4. Not that were intended for the Mass.....Sorry, but his music for guitar was secular, not Sacred.

5. Where does any document say anything about anything being ultimately up to the musical director?

6. Shouldn't the Pope/Bishops/Priests be making all of the Liturgical decisions?

7. Show me where there is a document that abbrogates the documentation previous to Vatican Council II? Also, there was a lot written before the Council, so do we simply pick and choose what is allowable and what is not? Since Tra Le Sollectudini is not accpetable any longer, how about Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus? Is that still acceptable? Or can we abandon that one too? Your post makes no sense and doesn't rebut my position at all.....

8. Fortunately for you the Church doesn't see it that way......perhaps more catechesis is needed.
[/quote]

1. No, it is not. In terms of instrumentation, it consistently uses vague terminology, highly open to interpretation. I have read "suitable for sacred use" and "noisy or raucous" used as catch-alls in both directions.

2. When said document concerns matters of discipline, then, yes, age DOES matter. Liturgy has parts that are matters of discipline (eg altar servers' genders) and otherwise (the Consecration).

3. I respect that you have a strong background in liturgy, but that doesn't make your interpretation of it perfect.

4. It's nowhere specifically prohibited, and the current GIRM allows for stringed instruments.

5. It's the only conclusion that I could come to, based upon the vague terminology provided by the documents you cited and advice by a number of priests.

6. They do, based on Scripture and Tradition, via the Magisterium's rules and guidelines and pastoral need.

7. Considering the fact that massive changes were made to the norms for liturgies, it's quite appropriate to question the validity of previous statements on liturgy that pertain to discipline. I don't see how instrumentation could possibly be otherwise, considering how tied it is to culture.

8. You've shown me the sources, shouldn't that be enough?

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' post='1093274' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
I've split up Cam's statements that I'd like to reply to into numbers for easy rebuttals.
[quote]. The Church is clear, despite what Scardella and Michael would like to think.

2. Also age of the document doesn't have one thing to do with the validity and binding of said document. That is a mistake to assume that because a Council took place ALL the other documentation on the subject is now moot.

3. I have simply given what the Church teaches then I have defended them. I don't want to be a lawyer.
But is mine to judge and it offended me. I spent years living with one of the WORLD'S foremost musicologists and I formally studied the Liturgy and Ceremonies while in school. That is where my viewpoint comes from. Who are you to simply dismiss it based on some guy named Michael.

4. Not that were intended for the Mass.....Sorry, but his music for guitar was secular, not Sacred.

5. Where does any document say anything about anything being ultimately up to the musical director?

6. Shouldn't the Pope/Bishops/Priests be making all of the Liturgical decisions?

7. Show me where there is a document that abbrogates the documentation previous to Vatican Council II? Also, there was a lot written before the Council, so do we simply pick and choose what is allowable and what is not? Since Tra Le Sollectudini is not accpetable any longer, how about Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus? Is that still acceptable? Or can we abandon that one too? Your post makes no sense and doesn't rebut my position at all.....

8. Fortunately for you the Church doesn't see it that way......perhaps more catechesis is needed.[/quote]

1. No, it is not. In terms of instrumentation, it consistently uses vague terminology, highly open to interpretation. I have read "suitable for sacred use" and "noisy or raucous" used as catch-alls in both directions.

2. When said document concerns matters of discipline, then, yes, age DOES matter. Liturgy has parts that are matters of discipline (eg altar servers' genders) and otherwise (the Consecration).

3. I respect that you have a strong background in liturgy, but that doesn't make your interpretation of it perfect.

4. It's nowhere specifically prohibited, and the current GIRM allows for stringed instruments.

5. It's the only conclusion that I could come to, based upon the vague terminology provided by the documents you cited and advice by a number of priests.

6. They do, based on Scripture and Tradition, via the Magisterium's rules and guidelines and pastoral need.

7. Considering the fact that massive changes were made to the norms for liturgies, it's quite appropriate to question the validity of previous statements on liturgy that pertain to discipline. I don't see how instrumentation could possibly be otherwise, considering how tied it is to culture.

8. You've shown me the sources, shouldn't that be enough?
[/quote]

First of all, the statements are incomplete. So, let's be perfectly clear about that from the get go. Secondly, you are assuming a bunch of stuff that you can't defend. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove the validity of these documents, but rather it is upon you to disprove them....That being said......

1. The terms in question are CLEARLY DEFINED. How much more clearly do they need to be stated? Smaller stringed instruments that can be played with a bow. Pianos, drums, bells and the like. Bands. Woodwind instruments. These are all pretty specific terms.....unless you like making things vague when they really are not.

2. Age does not matter when the document has not been abbrogated. Show me where these documents have been abbrogated and I will cede the point. (psstt...they have not been.)

3. I have never claimed to be perfect, but I can read. I understand the documents, precisely because I have been educated formally in them.

4. When something is not defined, the Church assumes that documentation from the past will suffice in the documentation. Hello, that is the definition.....

5. Then your conclusion is flawed, because it is not properly formed, based upon the totality of the documents. When you can show where the documentation is not clear and the instruments are not defined, then it would be accpetable to hold that opinion.

6. The Pope/Bishops/Priests relegate more often than not to MCs and Liturgists. I know, I was/am one. The big difference is that I consult and if need be correct the pastor on the matter of Liturgy.

7. There were not MASSIVE changes. Go back and read. There were changes yes, but the Mass if done properly is not all that different. It is all the "personalism" and abuse that has been injected that has caused Mass to change it's outward form so radically. That is a strawman.

8. Yes, the sources are enough. That is why I continue to use them and I have not changed my position. I am totally consistent with the position that I first posited.

[Resurrexi]

Cam, could you requote the documents please, I'm just wondering what they say.

[zunshynn]

There's another thread with them... not sure why we started a new one... but I'll find that one for you. It would be quite a lot for him to repost.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=57851&hl=concerning+instruments"]Concerning Instruments at Mass[/url]

he also posted most of the documents in one post[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=53270&hl=music"] here[/url]

Edited October 16, 2006 by zunshynn

[Cam42]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1093300' date='Oct 16 2006, 05:07 PM']
Cam, could you requote the documents please, I'm just wondering what they say.
[/quote]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=57851&hl=guitars"]Concerning Instruments At Mass..., mods: please don't move this yet[/url]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=50426&hl=guitars"]For Cam - aucostic guitars[/url]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=49508&hl=guitars"] Ahem....., I told you so.....[/url]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=34615&hl=guitars"]Are lturgical documents prohibitive, of all they do not prescribe?[/url]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=31830&hl=guitars"]Yay....the Vernacular, you gotta read it to believe it.[/url]

Those are a few links good luck that is about 50 pages of reading or so.....I am not going to requote everything.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=49508&st=180&p=923095&#entry923095"]LINK: To the defining documentation.[/url]

By the way, if these documents that I quote are outdated, scardella, why are they still being quoted as late as Redemptoris Sacramentum? Uh oh, methinks that these ancient documents from the 20th century still carry weight.

[scardella]

Cam,

This is all I'm going to say. I've read your quotes and your arguments. They have not convinced me of your position. If you believe I am wrong, pray for me. I will do the same for you.

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' post='1093460' date='Oct 16 2006, 07:59 PM']
Cam,

This is all I'm going to say. I've read your quotes and your arguments. They have not convinced me of your position. If you believe I am wrong, pray for me. I will do the same for you.
[/quote]

I pray for you every day, but that doesn't change the fact that you have not proven or supported your position adequately.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='scardella' post='1093274' date='Oct 16 2006, 05:32 PM']
4. It's nowhere specifically prohibited, and the current GIRM allows for stringed instruments.
[/quote]

Could you link us to the specific part of the GIRM that concerns instruments? I'd be interested to know what it says, since it is goth recent and official.

Edited October 17, 2006 by Norseman82

[scardella]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1093548' date='Oct 16 2006, 11:06 PM']
Could you link us to the specific part of the GIRM that concerns instruments? I'd be interested to know what it says, since it is goth recent and official.
[/quote]

It's from Chapter IX of the GIRM ([url="http://www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/chapter9.shtml"]http://www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/chapter9.shtml[/url]):

[quote]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]

I haven't found a guideline or rule for aptness, nor what constitutes longstanding. (Hence, my argument for the prudential judgement of the musical director.)

Also, I want to throw this document in, which I just ran across (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/musiccathworship.shtml)

[quote]37. Song is not the only kind of music suitable for liturgical celebration. Music performed on the organ and other instruments can stimulate feelings of joy and contemplation at appropriate times. This can be done effectively at the following points: an instrumental prelude, a soft background to a spoken psalm, at the preparation of the gifts in place of singing, during portions of the communion rite, and the recessional. In the dioceses of the United States, "musical instruments other than the organ may be used in liturgical services, provided they are played in a manner that is suitable to public worship."' This decision deliberately refrains from singling out specific instruments. Their use depends on circumstances, the nature of the congregation, etc.[/quote]

Edited October 17, 2006 by scardella

[Cam42]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1093548' date='Oct 16 2006, 10:06 PM']
Could you link us to the specific part of the GIRM that concerns instruments? I'd be interested to know what it says, since it is goth recent and official.
[/quote]

[quote name='GIRM #393'] Bearing in mind the important place that singing has in a celebration as a necessary or integral part of the Liturgy, all musical settings of the texts for the people's responses and acclamations in the Order of Mass and for special rites that occur in the course of the liturgical year must be submitted to the Secretariat for the Liturgy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for review and approval prior to publication.

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]
[i]Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 112.[/i]

[quote name='Sacrosanctum Concilium #112']The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy.

[b]Holy Scripture, indeed, has bestowed praise upon sacred song, and the same may be said of the fathers of the Church and of [u]the Roman pontiffs who in recent times, led by St. Pius X, have explained more precisely the ministerial function supplied by sacred music in the service of the Lord[/u].[/b]

Therefore sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites. But the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed qualities, and admits them into divine worship.

Accordingly, the sacred Council, keeping to the norms and precepts of ecclesiastical tradition and discipline, and having regard to the purpose of sacred music, which is the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful, decrees as follows.[/quote]

Led by whom? Pope St. Pius X? Who wrote Tra Le Sollectudini? Oh yeah, Pope St. Pius X. But that doestn't matter, because the powers that be say that those documents from before Vatican Council II don't matter.....HUH????????

The decrees that follow are these.....among others....
[quote name='SC #115']Great importance is to be attached to the teaching and practice of music in seminaries, in the novitiates and houses of study of religious of both sexes, and also in other Catholic institutions and schools. To impart this instruction, teachers are to be carefully trained and put in charge of the teaching of sacred music.

It is desirable also to found higher institutes of sacred music whenever this can be done.

Composers and singers, especially boys, must also be given a genuine liturgical training.[/quote]

[quote name='SC #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.

But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.[/quote]

The GIRM and Sacrosanctum Concilium assume that the preceding documents will be adhered to and the definitions which were put forth previously. So, for example where there is mention of stringed instruments, that doesn't allow for guitars, but rather supports the use of smaller stringed instruments which can be played with a bow.

Also, in a Church that has been around for 2000+ years, 40 years does NOT compile longstanding usage, when the other instruments such as the pipe organ and the smaller stringed instruments that can be played with a bow have been used for centuries.

When this is put in context with the documentation, logic follows that the Church is clearly speaking and it is the "personalism" of the current members of the Church which are innovative and not in keeping with Article 22 no. 3 of Sacrosanctum Concilium among other prescriptions.

[Norseman82]

OK, here is another question: how do you "render" and instrument "apt"? I'm a little confused, as instrumentation is not an area of liturgy that I've delved into too deeply...

[Cam42]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1093580' date='Oct 16 2006, 10:53 PM']
OK, here is another question: how do you "render" and instrument "apt"? I'm a little confused, as instrumentation is not an area of liturgy that I've delved into too deeply...
[/quote]

We don't....the Church does. She will do that by definiton.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
Ummm, hughey......

I only asked Michael to sign up. The rest of my post was directed to you, unless otherwise noted.
[/quote]
I understand. I just thought I should clarify before we started beating up on Michael. He really shouldn't be criticized for something I said, regardless of his presence on the baord.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
Since pianos are condemned, I would hope that his comment supports what I posted. I have posted it multiple times. Tra Le Sollectudini #19.
[/quote]
Hope is a good thing to have.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
Are you assuming that "the likes of me" are not educated enough to hold a conversation? Are you assuming that I am simply sitting in a cave and don't do anything for my parish? Are you assuming that I am not busy with apostolic works? Those are some pretty big assumptions!!!!
[/quote]
Those are some pretty big assumptions for you to give me. I never said a single one of those things...

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
Are you saying that people who come here and catechize are wasting their time? I strongly suggest that you recant this, you are going to offend many more people than just me.....You are sitting here debating with me....and last time I checked, you don't know me.....however, I look at this site as a means of projecting the knowledge that I have of the Church and as an apologetics tool. I am sure that many more people who come here feel the same way.
[/quote]
...nor did I say any of THOSE things.
1. I don't need to recant anything I didn't say.
2. I never claimed to know you.
3. I'm happy to know phatmass pleases you.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
What does Canon Law have to do with Liturgical sensiblities? They are mutually exclusive, ON PURPOSE. There is Canon Law and Liturgical Law. I would hope, though, that someone with his advanced degrees would support the Liturgical Law.
[/quote]
I was hoping you would make that connection.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
That is great for Michael. Then he and I have the same degrees. Whoo Hoo. And my dismissal of him is based upon your caracature of him. Based upon your view of him, he doesn't follow the documentation of the Church. Any Liturgist worth his salt would recognize Tra Le Sollectudini, etc. and follow their directives.
[/quote]
Well, don't let me fool you. My 'caracature' of Michael is nothing close to who or what he really is. He is a brilliant musician and I do believe that most would love him. (There are some that will just never be pleased.)

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
I don't know him, but I also don't know his opinion, unless you are giving it for him in an authentic manner, then yes, I don't trust him.
[/quote]
I can't authentically give you his opinion as our conversation was but a mere 10 minutes. Besides, I do believe that only he could authentically give you his opinion on this matter and others.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
Why don't you show me where my defense of right thinking of the Liturgy fails and I will relent. Until then, I will stand by the teachings of the Church and I will stand by the posts that I have made.
[/quote]
I will in the future. In the present time I do not have resources I am comfortable using. Soon enough...

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093272' date='Oct 16 2006, 04:32 PM']
Because regardless of what you have been exposed to, the teachings and documentation of the Church have not changed and are very clear.
[/quote]
Oh okay. Lucky me.