Instruments at Mass before 1962.
  • aquinasadmirer
    Posts: 102
    Hello,

    I was at a discussion last night about Vatican II. One of the assertions was that prior to 1962, only the organ was permitted at mass. Someone said that the violin was not permitted. I'm not old enough, or well-read enough to know. Is this true?

    I've heard there was a pope who didn't like the violin, and it was disallowed during his specific pontificate, but that stopped when a new pope was elected. I also know that the viola was seen as a folk instrument, and was not allowed for the liturgy for a long time.

    What were the regulations regarding musical instruments for what is now called "EF" for Latin-rite Catholics?

    Thanks,

    Mark
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Pope Pius X wrote this:

    VI. Organ and instruments
    15. Although the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music, music with the accompaniment of the organ is also permitted. In some special cases, within due limits and with proper safeguards, other instruments may be allowed, but never without the special permission of the Ordinary, according to prescriptions of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum.

    16. As the singing should always have the principal place, the organ or other instruments should merely sustain and never oppress it.

    17. It is not permitted to have the chant preceded by long preludes or to interrupt it with intermezzo pieces.

    18. The sound of the organ as an accompaniment to the chant in preludes, interludes, and the like must be not only governed by the special nature of the instrument, but must participate in all the qualities proper to sacred music as above enumerated.

    19. 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.

    20. 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.

    http://www.adoremus.org/MotuProprio.html#anchor40146479

    Over the years, some people have taken great offense when I tried to explain that Pius X (my confirmation Saint) did not favor orchestral Masses. I agree with this Saintly Pope, and I am not afraid to voice this opinion.

    For myself, I don't see how the sense of his words (above) can be denied.

    My understanding is that this has been relaxed over the years, especially by Blessed Pius XII, a great lover of the violin.
  • aquinasadmirer
    Posts: 102
    Thanks Jeff,

    What document is this from, and how binding is it canonically? It seems that these recommendations are pretty much ignored.

    -Mark
  • francis
    Posts: 10,672
    Jeff

    I TOTALLY agree and confirm your sentiment and that of the previous Pope.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,218
    Well, the late Mgr. Schuler would disagree with your assessment. It is clear that 'orchestral Masses' (Schubert, Haydn, Mozart, et al) were permitted--often they were written specifically at the behest of a Bishop, and JPII celebrated Mass at St Peter's with the Berlin Philharmonic using Mozart's "Coronation Mass" about 10 years ago.

    One suspects that such glorious settings are best used for equally glorious occasions (dedication of a Church, installation of a new pastor/Bishop, or perhaps Confirmations) rather than as a daily diet. And of course, these are Ordinaries which are sensitive to the Mass--not over-long, and the music illustrates the text.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,672
    Rome also 'permits' Rock Masses... are THEY appropriate to the liturgy? (all things being equal, of course ;-} ) Not that I am comparing an orchestral Mass to a Rock Mass. No Way. God gives us free will, however, and often abuse happens more because of ignorance or a personal preference as opposed to direct defiance to the will of the Church. Do I like an orchestral Mass? I have composed one myself. However, they should be RARE occasions when it is befitting to 'perform' one. For the rest of us... chant and polyphony should be the common fare of everyday life.

    Personal preferences and actions by any Pope (that move away from the norm) do not set a new standard, especially when they are a one time occurence. Do you think the Mass in DC (which B16 celebrated) would be a guideline from Rome, that you would promote the music of that Mass, and espouse that it is what he (and the Church) would allow and prefer at future Masses? I think he would frown at you just like he did at the music itself.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    Was that Mass the one with the absolutely RIDICULOUS instrumental bit in the responsorial psalm?

    EDIT

    the answer to that is yes. It starts at about 26:43 in the video on the website... (scroll down to April 17, 2008 - 10:00 a.m. - Papal Mass)
  • Ken of Sarum
    Posts: 406
    About number 71:15 is when the Reggae music starts - "Ven Espiritu" - YUCK YUCK YUCK!!!!! Let us all stand up and start the dirty dancing - Oh, whoops, it has sacred words?!?!?!?! Seriously, THIS is exactly why I am so starved for traditional orthodox conservative sacred music like plainsong chant, polyphony, motets, anthems - all the old classical sacred music and the choirs that perform them. Listening to this clip calls to mind like some open air place like Machu Pichu, or on a prairie with native Indians or in the Amazon jungle.
  • Donnaswan
    Posts: 585
    On Sunday evening the investiture of th ePator as a Monsignor will close with the 'song' We can make a differnece or is it YOU? He chose the music.
    D
  • Donnaswan
    Posts: 585
    Sorry- did not check my typing :)

    Donna
  • francis
    Posts: 10,672
    we CAN make a difference, and it is a "song" but boy is it awful!
  • Donnaswan
    Posts: 585
    And so fitting for Solemn Vespers. sigh. The "Band" is doing most of the singing. We will be in the loft- they will be in their usual spot downstairs with their own amps, mikes, etc There wikl also be a little ditty by Dona Pena,
    Donna
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,218
    Clearly, the Pope did not select the music for the DC extravaganza.

    And I presumed "well-formed" church musicians would be making the selection of music. You make the point that not all musicians are 'well-formed.'

    True dat.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,672
    dad29

    We all presumed. You would think that at that level, something akin to that would NEVER occur. So it seems that chaos reigns. All the more reason we need to be unwaveringly clear about what IS appropriate and lead by example in every smallest detail. I ask God for forgiveness every time I have to deviate against my own conscience and the best wishes of the Church. In the case of orchestral Masses, the music becomes the focus of the liturgy over the liturgy itself. I will always hold to that 'opinion' no matter who says differently. If you must hear an orchestra play 'religious' music, well, do so in a concert. Let us leave the sacred action of the liturgy and the center of focus to The Great and Holy Sacrifice itself and the he who stands In Personae Christi.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,161
    I didn't presume that the music on that papal visit would be any better than the music on past papal visits: the whole thing was run by the bishops of this country. Now, if Pope Benedict should decide to visit Oakland or Tulsa, I'll look forward to something better.
  • Carlos Foggin
    Posts: 23
    Comment removed
  • Carlos Foggin
    Posts: 23
    Comment removed
  • francis
    Posts: 10,672
    Doubling choral voices is an entirely different matter. It's expensive but lush... And we all love it.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    Richard,
    I had occasion to visit Christ Our Light Cathedral in Oakland and pick up an Order of Worship for Jan. 1, Mary Mother of God. Knowing that Mr. (Dr.) DeVos is dealing with a host of complex issues, I would still say that his brick building is literally from the ground up based upon that order. I am neither an adherent nor a critic of Alstott's HERITAGE MASS, and the Schutte Gospel Acclamation isn't the worst foisted upon a congregation, but it's clear that "middle ground" is the strategy (thankfully, the Agnus Dei and Divinum Mysterium, in English, were chanted.)
    The good news: Rudy has arranged a concert featuring the choirs of the cathedrals in SF, Sacto and San Jose combined.
    But navigating the "tastes" of the Oakland Diocese will neither be easy for either Rudy or Bsp. Cordinileone.
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Carlos, really? It would be much more authentic to use a chamber organ. I believe that harpsichords were not considered suitable for church use until sometime in the late 17th century, if ever, really. Corelli Sonate di chiesa sound so much better with organ and theorbo as the continuo group. I cannot imagine that any concerted Mass setting, even into the 18th century excluded the organ. Step away from the harpsichord and listen to how great the music sounds with just that small organ.
  • Carlos Foggin
    Posts: 23
    comment removed
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    No offense, but I've heard the harpsichord sound described as "two skeletons fornicating on a tin roof" -- and I'm sometimes inclined to agree with that description...

    edit

    although I will admit that there are some pieces which would just sound wrong without it.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,672
    i LIKE the harpsichord... but only with baroque or early music.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    Jam, you are hilarious! I tend to agree on the harpsichord. It's fine on music actually written for it. I find it too weak an instrument for the louder literature. A local Presbyterian church actually has one, although I don't know of any others in churches here.
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Don't get me wrong, I love the harpsichord, and I do appreciate Carlos's practical issue. Good luck getting that continuo organ!
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I have to disagree with Jam. I had a harpsichordist give a recital at my church, and he closed off with Bartok and Joplin. I (for one) really loved it! As he put it for the last one "well, no this isn't the sound he had in mind, but it's perhaps closer to his piano than a modern concert grand would be!"
  • francis
    Posts: 10,672
    O my gosh. I pasted this picture on the wrong thread! So sorry.

    this is the one i want

    image

    JAM... you can paint skeletons on it if you want... I would still buy it!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,937
    Francis, how much would that bad boy cost in current coin of the realm?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,672
    I think it's about 20k give or take a grand or two. I emailed the owner and offered to compose a collection of 100 pieces in exchange. That's about $250 per piece. Good deal for them, but I am not holding my breathe. Lol.
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,072
    If I remember correctly, wasn't it common to use the harpsichod during penitential seasons in Spain and Portugal? I am thinking back in the "siglo d'oro"...

    Is that a Dowd? Looks beautiful. I am partial to that shop's fine work; there has been a big Flemish one of them at both of my alma maters.
Add a Comment