Dr Mahrt's observation in the last sentence shows great insight and is unmistakably correct. These sorts of musicians and their publishers and clergy supporters have gone far out of their way in recent decades to distort (and preferably obliterate) the sacral, ecclesial nature of the mass and its music. They are shamelessly uncomfortable when faced with genuine liturgy and genuine church music. And, as all should know, pastoral considerations is nearly always a fig leaf for not offending this particular milieu (we don't mind offending those who don't like sacro-pop, do we?). Stand your ground and don't play the piano at all. It belongs on the concert stage playing Beethoven, not in a church plunking out silly ditties on charade as religious music during Holy Mass.

Incrimenatlism: on some of "their" pieces, go ahead and use the organ - keyboard only, melody line only, for the sake of the congregation singing - they are almost assuredly NOT getting that from the piano or any other instrument up on their "stage" - just a bunch of strumming and banging away! I did this with my accordion at such a "folk Mass" for a while in Houston. The piano was still used - doing that regular thing that pianos (pianists) do. And the guitars did what they always do. I didn't even do any "um-pa-pa" with my bass - just the melody line, clear and strong on the right hand. The singing increased almost exponentially. It proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that no other instrument in a "folk group" has the capability of of leading anything! the organ (accordion - lap-organ!) has wind to lead winded vocal singing.

There is no such thing as too much organ!

Hmmmm...if you had trouble with shakers or tambourines I could help you out. My parish has eclectic taste sometimes that may be remedied quite easily. I tend to be slightly mischievous by hiding the percussion in the Garden of Remembrance or under piano or some niches used in a bygone age. Unfortunately, however one cannot hide the guitarists in this manner...sigh!

All that aside. Just keep at it, you are right in trying to maintain the centrality of the organ as accompaniment for the congregation. There ought to be a marked difference in the level of singing when using it as compared to the electric piano. Perhaps let the guitars have a Mass by themselves and see how they feel about the singing after that. In the end it is easier to say "accommodate them more" rather than "lets work towards the best program possible".

The best way is to approach your pastor and fellow musicians and have a chat-a glass of wine may help. Go through the guidelines such as Sing to the Lord and Musicam Sacram like Dr. Mahrt said and try work something out. Try pointing out that it is "hip/cool/fierce" (I couldn't resist) to have Gregorian chant and the organ in the Mass. Perhaps share some videos that are abundant online as to what can be achieved - I'm starting to believe more in the media approach, since no one reads anymore these days. The worst thing you can do is to keep it to yourself or be seen as a difficult musician/puritan/diva that wants his own way.

Good luck! Hope it works out for the best! I'm off to hide some more percussion...

The Recessional "Hymn" for this Sunday Christ the King is Day by Day from Godspell

Run. There is no hope here. Get out while you can.


There are, in my opinion, legitimate arguments for a variety of musical styles and instrumentation at Mass. Folk and contemporary can have a place, as can piano and guitar. I know many people here disagree with that, but it's still my opinion, and the opinion of many thoughtful liturgical musicians.

However-
You're not talking about "this sounds like a showtune." Your parish is explicitly doing showtunes.
Clearly they have neither sense nor taste.

Unless this counts as inculturation, and your mission territory is an island inhabited by dope-smoking circus performers (in which case, carry on), your parish music program is... well... screwed. Sorry.

Save yourself and your family.

It is hardly cricket to appeal to the worship aesthesis of Baptists and such, or its widespread use in the home, to assert that the piano is a church instrument of long pedigree. What application does this have to the worship of liturgical churches and the Catholic Church. None! That this style of music is a recent and cruel intrusion on a two-thousand year tradition could hardly be contradicted.

rjl-
Yes, yes. That's my point. And it's much deeper than whether you use organ a lot, a little, or none at all. If a parish thinks that doing numbers from Godspell is just okely-dokely, there is no argument, liturgical or aesthetic, that's going to make any difference. This has nothing to do with whether the piano is an appropriate instrument or not. This has to do with people in charge being completely nuts.

Liam is apparently much more charitable than I am. He says, "operating from very different sets of assumptions and premises."
I say, "completely nuts."

Tomato, tomato; potato, potato.

Absolutely true!
If I was in rjl's situation, I wouldn't call my employers nuts.
I might, however, call them "my former employers."

But- you know- we all have to make a living.

It seems clear, though, that there won't be much headway in the good taste department here. Which means that, assuming gainful employment is a practical requirement for our friend, the best course of action is, "do what your told, and try not to go crazy."

it's guitar now, what's next?

Actually, that last paragraph could be a bunch of nails in the coffin against us, since it would be even more historically correct for the LA Guitar Quartet to accompany "Silent Night" as well. Now the guitar has historic precedence.

The church has been very clear that percussion instruments and music appeal to baser instincts of people and are inappropriate at Mass as do immodest dress.

Nothing's changed but the permissiveness of the clergy.

Heck, our Amish market has a sign refusing entry to people in shorts.

Yes, but, what about Pope Paul VI and Annibale Bugnini?
Surely, *they* had something to say about music at their New Mass?
Well, yes, actually, they did ...

Documents On The Liturgy 1963-1979 Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts (pages 127-128)
DOL 35 (29 December 1966) SC Rites, Declaration, Da quoalche tempo
repudiating arbitrary liturgical innovations

... and ...

Documents On The Liturgy 1963-1979 Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts (pages 129-133)
DOL 37 (29 December 1966) SC Rites, Press Conference
A Bugnini regarding the Declaration of 29 December 1966

http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1504#Item_18

"a great deal of sacralization before that kind of music can legitimately cross the church threshold."

I guess we somehow must have overlooked that progress, huh?

None of the Masses at the Colloquium would have been destroyed if a guitarist had played Bach. The great music that came into the church was music that was the work of composers who were expanding the tonality of music into modern forms. I do not suggest that this music is to be banned.

It's the permissiveness that puts a guitarist strumming music that is not expanding anything, but instead duplicating popular forms that are already out of favor by the time they reach the church and that create income for companies and encourage them to produce more and more of it.

Publishers are now promoting a shift in focus because it's becoming clear that the trash is being swept away. There has been great sacred music written throughout history and some being written right now, but it is not welcome in most Catholic churches, churches who are now familiar and accustomed to trash, poorly played and sung.

The church had drawn a line in writing that does not permit percussion instruments. This had never lowered the quality of music at Mass. Has erasing the line improved the quality of music at Mass?

.

Charles,

There is a lot of trash to pick through.



I believe that you, having been attacked as not being a "true believer", are automatically elevated to "true believer" status, meant in a good way. It appears that you have been targeted by the small number of black-suited, eye-averting TLM'er types who appear at church before their mass and totally ignore, in a very pointed way, anyone there that is not in their uniform.

Yes, the TLM'ers have their own skinheads. And it is not pretty. Anyone who gets in their way is attacked in one way or another. And when these sheep attack, it is bloody.

There are lovely people in the TLM cause who are mightily embarrassed by this.

The organ, in most situations blends into the background, as does a choir by its sustained tone. The percussive tones of many other instruments draws attention to them and interacts with the body to "sync" with it and people begin tapping their toes. This is what, I believe, the line is. Music should be of beauty but not distracting to the Mass, which explains the aversion to music written to draw attention to it rather than support the text.

The Schubert Mass was beautiful, but each part had a beginning, a middle and an end so we knew where we were in its singing. Chant does not do that. Which I prefer. But I also love Schubert.

I believe that I understand what you are saying and wish that I was articulate and intelligent enough to say something that would help. But the fact that you are struggling with this is a good thing.

MJO,
"." is cryptic and emphatic at once. Would you care to elaborate?

FNJ, thank you for your understanding and patience. "I also love the Schubert." Ditto. So did many others who acceded to its beauty (thanks, JE.) So someone ultimately decided its propriety was sufficient. How does that translate down to the parish level with honesty and integrity in tact? Doesn't the problem of "We have met the enemy and he is us" (I've used that many times myself, Walt Kelly was a genius) still remain within our own ranks?

Adam, thank you for encapsulating the real time inconsistencies. Though I've, for the sake of the argument, agreed to ban the guitar, it seems that calling the question of what practices are to be deemed authentic and the rest alien yet remain unaddressed.

If my personalizing this dialectic is an obstacle to someone advancing a definitive answer, take that out of the equation as well. Yes, I have a small measure of personal concern, but it's not an existential struggle for me. That part would just provide me some perspective on how to spend my time and resources within or without the entity of CMAA.
But I'm not losing sleep or anything. I know how to do my job as well.

And if all my positing remains "The Unanswered Question," all I ask is that someone just say so and call it a day.

Again, pax tecum.

Thanks for all the replies, and good discussion all. It's great to read all your thoughts. I spoke with someone yesterday who attends that Mass, and I asked them if they thought I played it "too much", she thinks I play it appropriately . I'm going to have a talk with them this weekend, and just say I'm doing nothing wrong liturgically and if you can specify that I am in some way, please show me where I can find it in documents. If I get no where with them then I'll go onto the Pastor.

CCCA, after reading your first post, I began to formulate my response;
it took awhile to locate the previously posted info and get just right the URL pointing to it,
therefore by the time I clicked "Add your comments"
two others had already responded, and mine became the third.

Now there is a second post from you, and more posts from others.

In Dec 1965 the Council ended;
by Apr 1966 the USCCB was responding to the music problem;
by Dec 1966 the SC Rites was responding to the music problem.
Other documents have been produced since then to the present (Verbum Domini).
Each of us can identify our own music behavior at any point in the timeline,
and check the degree of its correspondence with or deviation from the documents,
and judge whether that variance has helped or hindered attainment of the goal.

God decides about commandments, writes down the decision, and the expectation is clear.
The Church decides about music, writes down the decision, and the expectation is clear.
Either way, I do not have to like them, I just have to adhere to them.
It does not matter whether or not friends are involved.
By the fact of adhering, I receive a primary consolation, joy.
Should I find another adherent, I receive a secondary consolation.

where the lines of propriety are to be finally drawn and who will draw them,
so that we can dispense with "us v. them" once and for all?

Propriety? I think the operative cardinal virtue is Prudence!
For the sake of an alcoholic friend I will not order wine with my meal,
and will interrupt the waiter with "no thankyou for both of us" if the waiter starts the topic,
and begin choosing restaurants where waiters do not mention wine even though on the menu.
For the sake of a diabetic friend I will not eat candy in their presence,
and at some point unite myself with their plight by not purchasing candy.

tell me exactly where we all stand

Sorry, no, I cannot do that. "I" am not "we".
I can tell you where I am currently standing, and what I am trying to do.

The lines are drawn by ourselves, either broadly or narrowly.
Drawing lines so broadly is counter-productive,
there is difficulty in identifying the purpose of the lines.
For the good of others, I will draw the lines narrowly,
and forego something licit for the good of another.

And so we come to practical implementation.

Regarding instruments of antiquity ...
They were secular instruments introduced into the church then abandoned,
and other more recent secular instruments were introduced into the church and abandoned,
and now we have introduced the latest set of secular instruments.
For the antiques on your list, perhaps "sacralization" has started,
as now probably few to none make an immediate association with the profane.
However, if people see these in use now, and leap to "therefore guitars are okay", then I will forego use.

Regarding Viennese masses ...
I think Tra Le Sollecitudini (1903) cleaned up things quite a bit, and there was progress in chant.
The Council continued to promote the ideal, and is clear about the congregation singing the ordinary.
Should the Colloquium schedule a Schubert setting, as the congregation is singing the ordinary, okay;
despite my attraction to the music, if use prevents congregation singing the ordinary, I will forego use.

Regarding Bach ...
Given a liturgical piece, I will prefer music that is chant-based,
if it has a hymn-tune, and the goal is moving from hymns to propers, I will forego use.

what besides classical polyphony (what's that exactly?) makes the cut?

Anything clearly stated in the Church Documents is the minimum
to which we should all be in agreement and working to fulfull.
The grey can be considered after we have fulfilled the minimum,
if we are successful at still maintaining the excellent quality of the minimum.
I do not want a report card that comments "failed to complete the basic assignment".
I ought not to focus on producing extra-credit items when I am only mustering C-grade assignments.

Perhaps you can share more clearly where you stand, and why?

Adam

Bingo! Banjo!

Liam

Thank you! Tambourine!

I will also admit that if I asked myself this question, I would not be particularly pleased with my answer.

Each of us can identify our own music behavior at any point in the timeline,
and check the degree of its correspondence with or deviation from the documents,
and judge whether that variance has helped or hindered attainment of the goal.

Forensically speaking, that may be true. But along the curve of many decades, when many of us, degreed or not, were, through no one's fault, ignorant of those very documents, and acquired knowledge and reformed our philosophies and practices in accord with that intellectual and disciplined growth, we know we are obliged to judge ourselves to be in accord or otherwise. This dialogue is part of that process, in my opinion.

The Church decides about music, writes down the decision, and the expectation is clear.

Again, true. But also somewhat myopic in that we routinely discuss how to discern such documented legislations and recommendations that stand in contradiction to one another, whether the chronological order of their promulgation determines their efficacy and so forth. I'm not so sure that "the expectation is clear" 100%.

Propriety? I think the operative cardinal virtue is Prudence!

So, why does Catholic praxis, when put on the public front burner such as a televised Papal Mass, or at a Colloquium, need to have a "fix" of an incompliant Classical performance Mass of any era (those aren't endorsed in any 20th/21st century documents) or the obligatory solo rendition of the Franck "Panis Angelicus?" Such relatively "harmless" deviations are just the tip of a huge cultural iceberg of "doing one's own thing" whether its artistry is of the highest or lowest calibre.

Should the Colloquium schedule a Schubert setting, as the congregation is singing the ordinary, okay;
despite my attraction to the music, if use prevents congregation singing the ordinary, I will forego use.

Well, two things: 1. The Ordinary of a Schubert performance Mass cannot be taken up by a congregation, goes without saying. But the congregation has left the Propers and dialogues to own and perform. Except, 2. A congregation at a Colloquium is as Passion Fruit to an apple in the real world, real time parish experience. Colloquium attendees can compartmentalize the subtle distinctions, and "allow as how, now and then" Schubert or Haydn would taste just right.
All I asked was is that consistent with the alignment of CMAA goals and the mind of the Church?

Anything clearly stated in the Church Documents is the minimum
to which we should all be in agreement and working to fulfull.

see response above about expectations and clarity.

Perhaps you can share more clearly where you stand, and why?

Hmmm.
I stand with those who desire to offer back to the Lord the full measure of true beauty in both the musical and liturgical arts that were gifted to us by Himself, in the human form of Christ, who then gifted us with the Liturgy as a foretaste of the fulfillment of creativity that the saved saints will finally encounter in heaven.
I stand with those who seek to have life in abundance and in concord with Christ and each other. If that abundance liturgically means unequivocal adherence to chant and polyphony, accompanied by pipe organ or not, I just need to hear anyone prove that is undeniably the full expression of the mind of the Church. When you have the Pope presiding over such a pristine, elementary true liturgy such as the Vespers in the crypt of the Basilica one day, and presiding over a circus of ideology in a baseball stadium the next, that voice of authority is lost in cacophony.
I stand humbly.
Why? Because I love my neighbor as myself, and I desire my own salvation and sanctification.
Pax Christi, eft