It's a heresy condemned by St. Pius X in 1907 (Pascendi Dominici Gregis), some hundred years more or less after the deaths of Mozart and Beethoven.

Pascendi Dominici Gregis
On the Doctrine of the Modernists
Pope Pius X - 1907
ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS
VENERABLE BRETHREN, HEALTH AND THE APOSTOLIC BLESSING:
1. One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things,”1 “vain talkers and seducers,”2 “erring and driving into error.”3 It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office.
2. That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man.
3. Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.
Once indeed We had hopes of recalling them to a better mind, and to this end We first of all treated them with kindness as Our children, then with severity; and at last We have had recourse, though with great reluctance, to public reproof. It is known to you, Venerable Brethren, how unavailing have been Our efforts. For a moment they have bowed their head, only to lift it more arrogantly than before. If it were a matter which concerned them alone, We might perhaps have overlooked it; but the security of the Catholic name is at stake. Wherefore We must interrupt a silence which it would be criminal to prolong, that We may point out to the whole Church, as they really are, men who are badly disguised.
4. It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast. For this reason it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out their interconnection, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil results.
5. To proceed in an orderly manner in this somewhat abstruse subject, it must first of all be noted that the Modernist sustains and includes within himself a manifold personality; he is a philosopher, a believer, a theologian, an historian, a critic, an apologist, a reformer. These roles must be clearly distinguished one from another by all who would accurately understand their system and thoroughly grasp the principles and the outcome of their doctrines.

Alright, which one of you wiseguys scotch-taped edited excerpts from Inter Sollicitudines to the Assumption Mass fliers in my parish this morning?!

No, seriously, that happened. It included the bit about women in the choir, too.

That's really funny.

Francis,

By your standard (which I'm not deprecating) nearly everything written for the Ordo of Paul VI should be banned from use in a Catholic Church. Did I understand that correctly?

scotch-taped edited excerpts...

Wow - that's pretty incredible... inexcusable... self-righteous... the list goes on.

What in blazes is modernism?

Ahhh! If only it were!

Perhaps we just have different definitions of the word "explicit". Jan Swafford, the last link, is at least more reputable than the Lyndon LaRouche Institute; here's his last paragraph:

Since Beethoven’s day, the secrecy and world-ordering agenda of the Illuminati have made them a natural magnet for conspiracy freaks. The Illuminati actually existed only some nine years, but there are still lots of folks, including many on the American religious right and the John Birch Society, who believe the Illuminati are the mother of all conspiracies, a Jewish-dominated international cabal that has more or less run the world since they incited the French Revolution. My saying they were a short-lived and a bit pathetic phenomenon makes me, of course, part of the conspiracy—along with Beethoven. I’d like finally to meet some of my fellow conspirators. They seem like interesting people.

Schönbergian's observation that the issue is any secular music in church is more to the point. The Joyless argument that human brotherhood is only a masonic plot is absurd to me; these days the godless sort of Republicans have the motto Liberté, Égalité, tas de thé and seem happy to turn Matth. 23 over to the other side.

Alright, which one of you wiseguys scotch-taped edited excerpts from Inter Sollicitudines to the Assumption Mass fliers in my parish this morning?!

No, seriously, that happened. It included the bit about women in the choir, too.

@Nihil - Uncle Dick strikes again!

My mother has lapsed considerably from the Faith in the last couple years and has become virtually agnostic. Back during the years when her observance was more strict, she insisted that she would only have a Mass of Christian Burial as outlined in the new liturgical books. She was adamant on this. Last week, as I was saying goodbyes to my old choir, the topic came up of what settings of the Requiem certain members of my choir wanted. Without prompting my mother turned to me and told me she wanted Mozart's Requiem. I reminded her that she had asked for an English mass in the past, and she replied, "No, I want Mozart. And I want you to do it."

Now, it could be said that her years absent from practice have placed her in a Modernist mindset, and that this is only the natural answer to expect. Out of charity and filial piety, I'd like to interpret this as an example that even the works of Herr Mozart can be used by God, from time to time, as an instrument of Grace.

Schönbergian articulated very well what was behind my question as to what in blazes is Modernism ... in musical context, which to me also seemed to have taken root long after Mozart & Beethoven - in the early 20th century.

Although modernism, liberalism, humanism, naturalism, and rationalism are not equivalent philosophies, they certainly share components in common which have been repeatedly condemned and which continually surface across different segments of the Church over the span of centuries. While it might be more accurate, therefore, to clarify "Liberalism" rather than "Modernism", that really doesn't have anything to do (ultimately) with the point Francis was making, particularly as he pointed out that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies.

Schonbergian asked a valid point (which was answered) - why the rumpus about Beethoven 9 (answer was the text of the poem; agree or disagree). From that, a following point - why not ban all secular music? Why not ban "On Eagles Wings"?

Perhaps the question might be where WOULD we draw the line? As individuals?

Miley Cyrus? Lady Gaga? Why not? It's "just music", after all. It doesn't have an identity. Sad to say, maybe 150 years from now people will be having a similar discussion about these "artists" as we are having about Mozart and Beethoven. I wouldn't be at all surprised if society continues to follow the same level of decline.

Too extreme as an example? Then how about an opera? If Porgy and Bess is too much, we could always dial it back and have the Magic Flute... or Fidelio. Hey, Mozart and Beethoven were Catholic, so it's all good. Or what about about Carmina Burana? After all, the lyrics are in Latin, so no problem, right?

Are we seriously still having this discussion? Can't we simply acknowledge that we all have some line in the sand where we feel - no matter who the damn composer is - that the piece itself is out of keeping with the sacred nature of the place where we celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass?? That the lyrics are unsuitable? That the music somehow detracts from the essence of the sacred space?

I really don't see how it is productive to get offended by someone else's line in the sand...

There are some questions to which the answers are black and white... and others that I'm afraid must be subjective. The Church often allows a degree of latitude when it comes to music, as much as we might think that is not the case! :)

I have recently lost an old high school friend with whom I was once very close to a long bout of Parkinsons and related issues. I have found the Brahms requiem to be both consoling and inspiring. If any of you would pray for Tom I (and, no doubt, he) would be grateful. I would never countenance the Brahms requiem in church (except as a sacred concert), but find that works such as these can be tremendously consoling and inspiring in other contexts.

Having said that, I have, two or three times, found that Brahms's 'How Lovely Is Thy Dwelling Place' from his 'requiem' to be quite suitable as an offertory anthem on certain lectionary days. I don't believe that any other movement of this 'requiem' would be liturgically suitable. The same goes for any other large-scaled true masses and requiems. They dwarf the shape of the liturgy and they over-shadow, even usurp, the mass's own legitimate and inherent ritual action and rhythm.

an offertory anthem on certain lectionary days. I don't believe that any other movement of his 'requiem' would be liturgically suitable.

When we undertook Brahms we had previously only learned Ihr habt nun Traurigkeit/Ich will euch trösten for OT 14 C. This time the Offertories were:
1. Selig sind, die da Leid tragen (OT 30B)
7. Selig sind die Toten (All Saints)
6a. Siehe, ich sage euch (OT 33)
6b. Herr, du bist würdig (Christ the King)

.

"this argument began with organum..."

I read that in the very early Church there were discords between the simple chanting of the psalms by hermits, and the "prettier" versions developing in urban communities (singing in two alternating choirs, singing with trained voices, etc). I'll look for the reference.

We'll probably find the music we hear in the afterlife fantastic, until our guardian angel says: "Wait, you actually enjoy the sort of elevator muzak they play here in Purgatory?"

I respect your opinion but do not understand it,

Ghmus,

You have me confused. Francis quoted Pascendi, which isn't, therefore, an opinion but a teaching document of the Magisterium. Then he quoted St. Paul. Except in Minneapolis, we're not allowed to treat St. Paul as on the wrong side of the river of opinion. St. Paul teaches that we see now, as if through a mirror, obscurely.

Surely the "opinion" you disagree with is not " I hope to make it to heaven"? That leaves the statement of his name (a fact) and that the perfect liturgy will be in heaven, which also isn't exactly a debatable proposition.

What opinion has Francis shared, with which you disagree?

https://enlightenmentofmozart.weebly.com/key-ideas-of-enlightenment.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leck_mich_im_Arsch

(Does a devout Catholic lower oneself to this?)

I wouldn't take somebody's unsourced, poorly-written Weebly page (secular music existed before the Classical era, after all...) and a joke composition written for his friends as clear evidence that Mozart is the boogeyman.

These days one can use the internet to explore topics such as 'Mozart and scatology'. Or indeed the morals of composers, sculptors and painters of religious subjects from the Renaissance onwards. Much of the history is unedifying, and some probably corrupting. The important question is not 'should we venerate X' but 'can we use the works of X to help us worship God'.

Perhaps it is time for people to tone it down - or for me to take an extended hiatus.

Please not the latter. You are a mainstay of this forum, Charles. We would suffer if you left.

Sometimes this whole on-going argument reminds me of a musician's version of the Congregatio de Auxiliis.

I will admit that it is possible to find just about anything you want on the web to support one’s position. However, it is not a position that I’m trying to support, but simply an objective look at the facts. No one can judge the soul of Mozart except God, But it is our responsibility to weigh the works and ultimately, the fruit that is borne from them. Was Mozart a son of the enlightenment? We shant know until the end. Meanwhile, I still enjoy playing his piano sonatas... in the parlor, of course...

Good Council

Surely you mean Good Counsel?

And not Our Lady of the Parish Council? *shudder*

Unless you're saying that there's a particular Ecumenical Council which is Our Lady's favorite?

(Now THERE'S an incendiary topic not worth bringing up!)