Well, style of music is an important issue. But the association of the instrument is another. I studied classical guitar and I love it. The document above is not talking about the beauty of the instrumnts or the fine music (vs. fitting music). Most instruments can make beautiful music in the hands of the good musician. That's not the issue here, nor the exceptional use of the instrument here and there. It clearly says "by common opinion and use."
How many sacred music are there for guitar (not rearranged)? How much the electric guitar is used at recreational places instead of the organ, or vice versa?
Once again,"by common opinion and use."

When the Church has placed organ the highest esteem in the Roman Liturgy, is it right to ignore the organ in our church and have guitar band play exclusively in a Mass? When there's no organ, and the church cannot afford it, it's a different story. It seems to me that it's inevitable that contemporary pop-sacro music asks for guitar. (Every contemporary group I know in different parishes have guitar. Also I noticed that many contemp. music have long long holding notes in the melody, and typically guitar has to fill in.) That's why the Church document above warned us, and this has been ignored by the local churches.

But at this point in America, the guitar does not fit the bill of "by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music ONLY" (emphasis mine). People expect to hear the guitar at church. I hear protestants whining now about the poor quality of "praise music", and their answer is to make NEW praise music for the guitar! That U2 thing mentioned on another thread is controversial now, but what do people go to when they want something traditional? Guitar music. Go to your local Evangelical church's "traditional service" now, I can tell you what instruments they'll use. Hint: the building doesn't have an organ... In our culture, church now means guitar, so the guitar fits the bill as not being suitable only for secular use. In fact, thanks to the evangelicals, are there ANY instruments our culture considers appropriate for only secular use?

Another problem with MS63 is that it only says "secular music", thus admitting syncretism in mission lands. "Aboriginal worship uses a type of drum? Oh, we can use that because it's not secular, it's pagan!" So we have to accommodate not only protestant but non-Catholic worship practices thanks to this method of "inculturation". Yet another reason we should just ignore MS63 and stick to style. The main objections the Early Church Fathers had to the organ and other instruments wasn't that they were used by pagans, but rather that by using them, the Divine Liturgy would sound like pagan worship! Same thing with Pius and operatic music. Musical style is a much better marker of appropriateness than the instruments used.

Sorry, but that's why guitar is a secular instrument by common use, as the Church described earlier. It could be better we use it outside the Church. It's musicians' duty to correct the problem. As long as guitar is permitted, it will be this way. Many trained guitarist, I know, don't think it's appropriate to play it in the Churches,including electric or Jazz guitar players.(They say thay feel too confined in the church And they cannot do many things that they want to do in the church.) And the classical guitarist don't want to play the music that need only a few chords with tabs. If you want to hear beautiful guitar music, go to a guitar concert. (There are many coffee shops also who have free live guitar music. They are actually pretty good.) We have organ in the church. We have proper chants and sacred music, and we have a proper instrument. Other songs and other instruments are permitted, but misunderstood.

Our new building is now 11 (or is it 12) years old. The church itself is in "gathered seating" style, and seats approx. 1,200. The first musical instrument they bought for use at Mass was a 9' Baldwin Concert Artist Grand. It wasn't until several years later that the associate music director (an organist) insisted that at the very least a digital simulation of a pipe organ be purchased and installed. The director wasn't an organist. He was a guitarist and pianist. And this in a parish with a growing population in an area that prides itself on good choral music.

I don't think I could beg someone to take organ lessons if their only exposure to the organ was the digital simulator we have. BUT, everyone LOVES to hear that piano be bashed on.

I agree with Mia. One thing I would have done at my last church if I would have been there longer would have been to require all cantors and people in the Saturday guitar group to attend a couple sessions to explain Sacred Music. Not so much to say "you all are worthless and need to stop playing guitar" but more to expose them to the basic principles (chant, tradition, propers) and let them figure out where to go from there. Then at the least they're educated.

I still disagree about the guitar. The wording isn't any instrument with secular associations. It's ONLY secular. Again, this battle is lost with the guitar. I'm sorry, I wish it weren't true, but it is. In America, it is both a church and secular instrument. The battle we have to fight is style. We don't necessarily have legislation on our side for that, but we do have tradition and common sense for that.

And I agree that the guitar (or any other instrument) should never receive prominence over the organ. At the same time, the organ must never receive prominence over the human voice. I think it's less a matter of tearing down the guitar (which will only gain us enemies in the strummer crowd) but rather lifting up the human voice, particularly a capella. I think that's something that would go over well with many of those groups: go to them and say "wouldn't it be nice if you had a song sung without instruments once a Mass?"

It's all about style. To paraphrase Christ (I know, always dangerous) "It's what comes out of an instrument that defiles it". MONTHS ago someone on this site said something that had a lasting impression on me. They were listing criteria for church music and the most basic one was--does it sound like music that would only be appropriate for a church. I've mulled that over for months and have decided it is worthy of being the cornerstone of my own personal mission statement as a church musician. Because it's an organ, there's no guarantee that it's going to produce music appropriate for the mass and just because it's a drum, it isn't inherently inappropriate. When you have someone keeping the beat with a trap set though, I'd say you have a built in component for a dance band, and you are not going to be able to make music that would only be appropriate for a church. Style, Style, Style...

"Musicam Sacram:
63. In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popuar devotions.

"by common opinion and use"--- what if the instrument has been used mostly for recreation, but starting to use for the Liturgy and becomes a common practice? (like guitar in our culture) I don't know how you interepret this and can actually have effect on limiting the use of secular instrument in our Liturgy."


SUDAPHED is about the only thing that controls my allergies. Unfortunately, through common use it has been discovered that you can make Methamphetamine drugs with it. So now its sale is controlled because it has been determined that if it is available for common use, it can be used for the wrong reasons.

You just stop using it, ban its use in the church. Nothing in a church building, including T-Shirts, should bring to mind the secular world. It's banned. What you hear falls under the same rule.