Concerning Instruments at Mass - Part II

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093573' date='Oct 16 2006, 10:41 PM']
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.
[/quote]
[quote]Even if it is a matter of non-infallible or prudential judgment, we are called to follow the legislation of the Church. We don't live in the historical Church, but rather we live in the current Church. We should take to heart those things which pertain to TODAY in matters of prudence and right thinking.[/quote]It's probably just me, (I'm infatuated with my own biased opinion), but I thought this funnier than shinobi.

Edited October 17, 2006 by Anomaly

[Cam42]

This is precisely what happens when one takes two unrelated statements and puts them together.

In the first, I am making a statement about the actions of the members of the Church with no magisterial authority.

In the second, I am making a statement about the judgment of the Pope in regard to the faithful.

This ridiculous claim is like posting that Cam said the sky is gray, on a rainy day. But then in another post Cam was talking about "Blue Skies Again," the song.


[quote name='hughey']I never said a single one of those things...[/quote]
No, you didn't but you assumed them.

[quote name='hughey']...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]
Again you assumed them, not only in my case but also of the others who post here.

[quote name='hughey']I was hoping you would make that connection.[/quote]
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttt......I am sure that is what you meant when you posted that about your pastor. I made that connection years ago and made a similar post about it over a year ago.

[quote name='hughey']He is a brilliant musician and I do believe that most would love him. (There are some that will just never be pleased.)[/quote]

I don't doubt that he is a good musician. And if he is participating in abuses of the Mass, then you are correct, I will never be pleased. (Please don't patronize me and say that this was not aimed at me by saying "There are some....")

[quote name='hughey']I will in the future. In the present time I do not have resources I am comfortable using. Soon enough...[/quote]

Good luck with that....people have been trying for a long time and nobody, even hot stuff (whose been debating this with me for over 10 years) has been able to disprove this position.

Also if you are going to tote out that ICEL document from 1978, don't bother. It has been proven to be riddled with errors and this is why the Vatican has called for major reforms in the Liturgy in the English speaking world (as well as other places). There is a reason that the bishops must now go through the Holy See and get the [i]recognitio[/i] of the Vatican as opposed to simply going through ICEL in years past.

[Cam42]

For those who think that the previous documents on Sacred Music are simply old fashioned and/or outdated, here is what Pope John Paul II had to say on the subject:

[quote name='On Sacred Music #1']Moved by the lively desire "of maintaining and of promoting decorum in the House of God", my predecessor Saint Pius X one hundred years ago issued the motu proprio Tra le sollecitudini, which had as its object the renovation of sacred music in acts of worship. [b]With it he intended to offer to the Church concrete directions in that vital sector of the Liturgy, presenting her "a kind of juridical code of sacred music".[/b][/quote]

[quote name='On Sacred Music #2'][u]This beginning is taken up again by the Ecumenical Council Vatican II in Chapter 6 of the constitution on the sacred Liturgy, [b]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/b][/u], where the ecclesial function of sacred music is recalled with clarity: "The musical tradition of all the Church constitutes a patrimony of inestimable value, which exceeds that of other expressions of art, especially by the fact that sacred song, united to words, is a necessary and integral part of the solemn Liturgy"...[/quote]

[quote name='On Sacred Music #4 no.3']The reform effected by Saint Pius X had specifically in view the purification of Church music from the contamination of profane theatrical music, which in many countries had polluted liturgical music repertoire and praxis. [b][i][u]This is also to be considered attentively in our times, as I have placed in evidence in the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia: that not all expressions of the figurative arts and of music are capable "of adequately expressing the Mystery worshipped in the fullness of the Church's faith". As a consequence, not all musical forms can be considered suitable for liturgical celebrations.[/u][/i][/b][/quote]

[quote name='OSM #8 no.1'][i]The importance of preserving and increasing the age-old patrimony of the Church[/i] leads to taking up in particular a specific exhortation of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium: "Scholae cantorum are to be zealously promoted, especially around cathedral churches". [b]In its turn, the Instruction Musicam sacram specifies the ministerial task of the schola: "Worthy of particular attention, for the liturgical service that unfolds, is the choir or cappella musicale or schola cantorum.[/b] [u]Following the conciliar norms regarding liturgical reform, its task has become of still greater remark and importance: it must, indeed, attend to the exact execution of those parts proper to itself, according to the various types of songs, and accommodate active participation of the faithful in song. Therefore [...] there is and is to be promoted with special care, in cathedrals and other large churches, in seminaries and religious houses of studies, a choir or cappella musicale or schola cantorum".[/u] The task of the schola has not decreased: it indeed develops in the assembly the role of guide and support and, at certain moments of the Liturgy, has its own specific role.[/quote]

[quote name='OSM #9 no.2']In such formational works, a special role develops for schools of sacred music, which Saint Pius X exhorted to be maintained and promoted, and which the Second Vatican Council recommends to be formed where possible. A concrete fruit of the reform of Saint Pius X was the erection in Rome, in 1911, eight years after the motu proprio, of the "Pontifical Academy of Sacred Music", afterward becoming the "Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music". [b][u]Near this now almost-centenary academic institution, which has rendered and still renders a specialized service to the Church,[/u][/b] there are many other schools founded in individual Churches, which deserve to be supported and developed for an ever better understanding and execution of good liturgical music.[/quote]

[quote name='OSM #15 no.1'][u]I desire that the centenary commemoration of the motu proprio Tra le sollecitudini,[/u] by the intercession of its sainted Author, united with that of Saint Cecilia, patroness of sacred music, [u]be of encouragement and stimulus for as many as concern themselves with this important aspect of liturgical celebrations.[/u] May those devoted to sacred music, dedicating themselves with renewed momentum to a matter of such vital import, contribute to the maturing of the spiritual life of the People of God.[/quote]

So, looking at what Pope John Paul II had to say about Tra Le Sollectuidini in 2004, I would say that we are still to hold it as a defining document of Liturgical reform and continuing education. It is through this light of understanding from the previous pontiff that I take inspiration. This echoes everything previously that I had been taught and supports the positions that I have taken to date about the care and seriousness needed to be given toward Sacred Music in the Liturgical life of the Church.

The document:[url="http://www.adoremus.org/Chirograph-SacredMusic.html"]Chirograph: On Sacred Music[/url]

[Cam42]

I would also strongly suggest that anyone intested in this issue should read [url="http://www.musicasacra.com/pdf/chron.pdf"]A Chronicle of the Reform: Catholic Music in the 20th Century[/url] by Mons. Richard Schuler.

It does a masterful job of explaining what I have been trying to get across for a very long time.

[quote name='Chronicle of Reform']If there was one single difficulty that surfaced as the main problem in this country in implementing fully the orders of the Church, it would be the lack of professional training of those who were trying to fulfill the decrees. This was caused chiefly by the lack of professional schools of music that taught anything about Catholic church music and the reluctance of church authorities to put adequate finances into the liturgical music programs.[/quote]

[quote name='CR']In 1951, Pope Pius XII beatified Pope Pius X, and in 1954, he declared him to be a saint of the Church. These events were widely celebrated by church musicians and gave a great impulse to efforts to implement the motu proprio of Pius X. But the most important event of the entire post-war period was the publication of the encyclical, Musicae sacrae disciplina, by Pope Pius XII, December 25, 1955. The first time a pope turned his attention in a major encyclical to questions of liturgical music, this document came in a logical and planned line of development that began with Pope Pius X’s motu proprio of 1903 and was prepared for by the encyclical, Mediator Dei, of 1947. In adding yet another stone to the edifice of reform, Pius XII did not sound the negative note of excising decay that many thought they found in the motu proprio of Pius X. It is true that what is sensual and unchaste, illicit and extravagant and irreverent must be eliminated. But now the Holy See wished us rather to cultivate the great, the beautiful and the artistic. The valuable research of musicologists had opened the treasures of the past and new compositions of spiritual and artistic merit had appeared to adorn the liturgy.[/quote]

[quote name='CR']On September 3, 1958, the feast of Saint Pius X, the Sacred Congregation of Rites made specific the more general directions of the encyclical with the instruction, De musica sacra etsacra liturgia. It was based solidly on the motu prop rio, Tra le sollecitudini of Pius X, the apostolic constitution, Divini cultus of Pius XI, the encyclical, Mediator Dei of Pius XII, and the encyclical, Musicae sacrae disciplina. It stated clearly a well organized code of church music legislation.[/quote]

[quote name='CR']What the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council as well as the various instructions that followed after the council had to say on sacred music could be found almost in detail in the 1958 instruction.[/quote]

There is more, but this is a taste. It is a great read from one of the great musicologists of our generation.

[stbernardLT]

In the back of the Girm under section 393. The US Bishops made an adaptation that allows other wind, string, and percussion instruments according to the longstanding local usage. These instruments must be rendered apt.

I know the response is that they have told which instruments are aloowed, but I can't understand why they would make ADAPTATIONS if these were instruments that were already allowed.

That is why I think it is meant to generalize what instruments are allowed in the US.

[Cam42]

[url="http://www.adoremus.org/0703Soloists.html"]Musicians in Catholic Worship - Part I[/url]
[url="http://www.adoremus.org/0903Organists.html"]Musicians in Catholic Worship ­ Part II[/url]
[url="http://www.adoremus.org/1003Music.html"]Musicians in Catholic Worship ­ III[/url]

Here are a series of articles I have posted before on Music in the Liturgy written by Lucy Carroll. She is also one of the leading musicologists of our day.

It is more support for right thinking when it comes to the Liturgy and the Church's musical worship.

[quote name='stbernardLT' post='1094114' date='Oct 17 2006, 02:47 PM']
In the back of the Girm under section 393. The US Bishops made an adaptation that allows other wind, string, and percussion instruments according to the longstanding local usage. These instruments must be rendered apt.

I know the response is that they have told which instruments are aloowed, but I can't understand why they would make ADAPTATIONS if these were instruments that were already allowed.

That is why I think it is meant to generalize what instruments are allowed in the US.
[/quote]

Where is the proof for that statement? And again 40 years doesn't equate to longstanding usage. We must remember that the GIRM assumes previous documentation and even quotes the documents that I am citing.

And just who renders these instruments apt? It is the bishops' conference with the RECOGNITIO of the Holy See. To my knowledge, the guitar has never been rendered apt. The instruments that I have cited have been. Every single one I have listed.

So, I believe that the adaptations that you are assuming are too broad. Unless you can show proof as to what you are talking about through documentation from the Church, this is simply and opinion which cannot hold any credence.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093821' date='Oct 17 2006, 08:32 AM']
This is precisely what happens when one takes two unrelated statements and puts them together.

In the first, I am making a statement about the actions of the members of the Church with no magisterial authority.

In the second, I am making a statement about the judgment of the Pope in regard to the faithful.

This ridiculous claim is like posting that Cam said the sky is gray, on a rainy day. But then in another post Cam was talking about "Blue Skies Again," the song.
[/quote]
I thought it was pretty funny, too.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093821' date='Oct 17 2006, 08:32 AM']
No, you didn't but you assumed them.
[/quote]
Correction. You assumed that I assumed them. Never did I assume that you were unintelligent, couldn't hold a conversation, lived in a cave, did nothing for your parish, etc. In fact, anyone that is looking in on this is probably laughing almost as hard as I am. These are some pretty far-fetched assumptions on YOUR part. Try not to get emotional, okay?

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093821' date='Oct 17 2006, 08:32 AM']
Again you assumed them, not only in my case but also of the others who post here.
[/quote]
Did I? No. Actually, I didn't. This is another assumption on your part. Two strikes for you.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093821' date='Oct 17 2006, 08:32 AM']
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttt......I am sure that is what you meant when you posted that about your pastor. I made that connection years ago and made a similar post about it over a year ago.
[/quote]
You know, you're not very nice at all. You sit here accusing me of calling you an unintelligent, time-wasting caveman. Then what do you do? You call ME stupid. Good going.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093821' date='Oct 17 2006, 08:32 AM']
I don't doubt that he is a good musician. And if he is participating in abuses of the Mass, then you are correct, I will never be pleased. (Please don't patronize me and say that this was not aimed at me by saying "There are some....")
[/quote]
I never said it wasn't aimed at you. :

[quote name='Cam42' post='1093821' date='Oct 17 2006, 08:32 AM']
Good luck with that....people have been trying for a long time and nobody, even hot stuff (whose been debating this with me for over 10 years) has been able to disprove this position.

Also if you are going to tote out that ICEL document from 1978, don't bother. It has been proven to be riddled with errors and this is why the Vatican has called for major reforms in the Liturgy in the English speaking world (as well as other places). There is a reason that the bishops must now go through the Holy See and get the [i]recognitio[/i] of the Vatican as opposed to simply going through ICEL in years past.
[/quote]
You certainly are full of yourself, aren't you?

[Cam42]

[quote]Correction. You assumed that I assumed them. Never did I assume that you were unintelligent, couldn't hold a conversation, lived in a cave, did nothing for your parish, etc. In fact, anyone that is looking in on this is probably laughing almost as hard as I am. These are some pretty far-fetched assumptions on YOUR part. Try not to get emotional, okay?[/quote]

I am hardly emotional. You are the one who is all bent out of shape over me showing what the Church actually says. Sorry for promoting right thinking according to the Church's teaching. And if I have assumed anything, then it is simply in retort to assumptions that you have made previously. (Pssttt...a balk can't be a strike)

[quote]Did I?[/quote]
Yes, actually you did. Enough of that though......moving on.....

[quote]You know, you're a real jerk. You sit here accusing me of calling you an unintelligent, time-wasting caveman. Then what do you do? You call ME stupid. Good going.[/quote]
Care to quote me on those things you are accusing me of? Where have I called you stupid? I have not, nor have I made any allusion at any time that you are. I don't think you are stupid at all.

[quote]You certainly are full of yourself, aren't you?[/quote]
No, I am not. I am simply stating what the Church teaches. At that point, I am applying logic, as well as deductive and inductive reasoning to the teachings of the Church to provide a balanced and accurate view. The view is accurate, because I can point to citation and documentation which supports the position. Something I have asked you to do, but have as yet to provide. I will wait patiently though. I've been waiting for over a year for anyone to show me solid doucmentation which refutes my position. The fact of the matter is that the Church's position is clear and it is right thinking. I am simply supporting the Church, something I have always done on this site.

Notice that I am not the one who first resorted to name calling and childish action. That was you. You started this by calling me nuts. If you would like to call a truce, then fine, I will accept, but if you don't I will continue to show documentation and citation and offer more and more articles which support my position.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1094138' date='Oct 17 2006, 03:22 PM']
I am hardly emotional. You are the one who is all bent out of shape over me showing what the Church actually says. Sorry for promoting right thinking according to the Church's teaching. And if I have assumed anything, then it is simply in retort to assumptions that you have made previously. (Pssttt...a balk can't be a strike)
Yes, actually you did. Enough of that though......moving on.....
Care to quote me on those things you are accusing me of? Where have I called you stupid? I have not, nor have I made any allusion at any time that you are. I don't think you are stupid at all.
No, I am not. I am simply stating what the Church teaches. At that point, I am applying logic, as well as deductive and inductive reasoning to the teachings of the Church to provide a balanced and accurate view. The view is accurate, because I can point to citation and documentation which supports the position. Something I have asked you to do, but have as yet to provide. I will wait patiently though.
[/quote]
Are you kidding right now? You post something which could imply that I am stupid but I, the one that posted NOTHING that could lead one to assume that I have assumed you are an unintelligent, time-wasting caveman, am accused quite strongly of assuming things. RIGHT. That makes a load of sense! Which is prolly why you don't want to talk about it, huh?

You know.. if one POSTS something about another mentioning the words caveman, unintelligent, unable to hold a conversation, etc, THEN I might see a reason to place assumptions on that person. However, I said none of this. So then you do appear to be emotional or at least defensive. I have a feeling someone has accused you of these things before.

[Lil Red]

alrighty everyone - take a deep breath and chill out. let's move past the accusations and onto the actual topic, okay? i'd hate to edit and moderate this topic

[Cam42]

If you want to continue the personal attacks PM me. I don't think that it is appropriate for the board.

More support for my position though is this:

[quote name='A Chronicle of Reform'][b]In asking the question why, musically speaking, the reforms of the council were not a success, one must always arrive at the same answer: the wishes of the council fathers were not carried out. The council documents are clear; the instructions that followed are detailed and understandable; the official liturgical books leave no doubt about their use. But why have they not been put into effect in the United States?[/b] An important reason lies in the issuing of adocument by the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, prepared by the Music Advisory Board and entitled “The Place of Music in Eucharistic Celebrations.” [b]While claiming to be an American interpretation of the Roman instruction, Musicam sacram, this statement is based on principles quite contrary to the expression of liturgical theology continuing though the past one hundred years. It is confused and even erroneous in doctrinal, musical and legal aspects. One wonders why the Roman instruction was not allowed to stand on its own and why an American statement
was necessary at all, unless perhaps to prevent the Roman directions from becoming known and implemented in the United States.[/b][/quote]

That is a profound thought by Mons. Schuler.

[quote name='CR']But “The Place of Music in Eucharistic Celebrations” is not confused only in doctrinal matters. It fails in musical questions to conform to directives from the Holy See. Musicam sacram says: “The distinction between solemn, sung and read Mass, sanctioned by the instruction of 1958, is to be retained.[/quote]

Who can tell the difference these days?

[quote name='CR']One may ask how such a body as the Music Advisory Board could impose its opinions on the musicians and clergy of the United States. What was their legal foundation? The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy says: “It is desirable that the competent ecclesiastical authority, mentioned in article 22, set up a liturgical commission, to be assisted by experts in liturgical sciences, sacred music, art and pastoral practice.” Advisory boards were set up in other areas besides music. Their capacity was seen as exclusively advisory to the Bishops’ Committee on the
Liturgy.[/quote]

Always back to Artcile 22 of Sacrosanctum Coniclium.....I wonder if that has a lot to do with the abuses and the widespread ignoring of that article of the document.

[quote name='CR'][b]The question is obviously just what authoritative value does this document possess, and therefore, what respect and even obedience does it demand? Can it be construed as the basis for local diocesan legislation on musical matters, as has in fact so often been done?

[u]The answer must be that it has no legal binding force, since it is merely the opinion of a board that is only advisory to a committee that in itself has no legislative authority but is constituted to report to the full body that empowered it, an act that doubtfully was ever done at all.[/u][/b] [u]In addition, when the opinions of an advisory board are found to be in contradiction to authoritative Roman instructions, then they clearly must be rejected. But, in fact, they were not, and “The Place of Music in Eucharistic Celebrations” became the basis for, great activity in most dioceses where many musicians in good faith accepted the, propaganda delivered to them by Universa Laus, acting through the Music Advisory Board.[/u][/quote]

And here we begin to see the reality of what has become the situation we are in today.

[franciscanheart]

Sorry, red.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1094147' date='Oct 17 2006, 04:35 PM']
alrighty everyone - take a deep breath and chill out. let's move past the accusations and onto the actual topic, okay? i'd hate to edit and moderate this topic
[/quote]

I totally agree. Hence the stuff above this.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1094158' date='Oct 17 2006, 03:44 PM']
I totally agree. Hence the stuff above this.
[/quote]
Because you are so without fault, right? You didn't say anything or keep it going at all. Please.


Sorry. I'm done. Goodbye.

[Cam42]

[quote name='A Chronicle of Reform'][b]With the document now enjoying an “official” position, taken by some to be even legislative and authoritative and equal if not surpassing Roman legislation, the disintegration of church music across the country began in earnest. “Beat” music, so called folk-music, combos, jazz and rock groups, country Western and ballads became the accepted music for parish liturgies, weddings, graduations and even ordination.[/b] The Catholic and the secular press have recorded the aberrations. With the introduction of profane and trivial compositions and performances, good music became ever more disused, as choirs were disbanded and even prohibited. Seminaries, novitiates and colleges led the way, and little official effort was expanded to curtail it. [b]In some dioceses the bishops did speak up forcefully against abuses.[/b] Writers in Catholic periodicals generally backed the revolution, but others expressed caution and concern. As music for “special groups,” originally intended for college and high school students, came to mean music for elementary pupils too, so that they could participate more fully, some liturgists promoted the writing of music by grade school children for performance at their Masses. [u]“Living Worship,” a publication of the Liturgical Conference, assured church musicians that the piano had at least four advantages over the organ as a liturgical instrument, and that ukeleles are amazingly simple for young children to learn to play. In a more learned idiom, “Worship” published an explanation of the entire reform: “The hootenanny Mass can give explicit eucharistic and christological specification to youth’s intense involvement in the movements for racial justice, for control of nuclear weapons, for the recognition of personal dignity.[/u][/quote]