yea, this one from dad29 is point blank. I like point blank.

The point is that God is not worshiped by machine. Since 'actuosa participatio' begins with conforming oneself to Christ in offering oneself to God, it cannot possibly be accomplished robotically in any consequential action at Mass.

To be near-sacrilegious, it's akin to Christ sending R2D2 to Calvary in His stead.

Nathan,

I'll see if I can find anything beyond what is already listed by others on this thread, but I encourage you to think not in terms of legislation, but first principles.

Recorded music is just that: not being made by the persons in the moment; always exactly the same; not designed, 99.99%+ of the time, for the building in which it is replayed; an offense against God because we're not offering ourselves at all; and an offense against the much esteemed Second Vatican Council which encouraged the laity to be actually (not actively) offering the Mass, consciously.

There are also potential copyright violation issues.

lol. ya gotta think twice about this one... you are not allowed to clone a human in the liturgy!

I know that in the diocese of Oklahoma City, the bishop issued a mandate that there should be no recorded music at mass. This was a few years back and I no longer have the document since I moved out of the diocese nearly 4 years ago. I believe Bp. Sample of Portland also made reference to this in his letter on music.

Sponsa,

Those who support the use of this prohibited stuff will dismiss the paragraph you cite as one of those bones the fathers of the Council threw to the radical traditionalists which everyone (wink, wink) knew was only in there to get the document passed, and therefore can be freely ignored.

CGZ - no that's 1967, and written by Bugnini et al.
It is unfortunately possible to dismiss it as not applying to the 1969 NO.

observation loaded with potential explosion

Since a digital organ IS a mechanical recording (of a real pipe organ, ie, a “music machine”?), I am thinking it should be banned from the liturgy.

And that will be a great way to ensure more organs would be replaced by pianos. Be careful what you ask for.

Ah, so a future with fewer instrumentalists whatsoever. (Not mocking you. Cautioning about the way that logic can work in practice on the ground in more places than I'd prefer.)

BHC, I don't think that has anything to do with it. Bells are allowed and they don't move air through them (yes, they vibrate air, but you get my point). The issue isn't the mode of sound production, per se, but rather the sounds themselves and the broader ethos of the instrument. At this point the organ has been sacralized over centuries. Other common instruments rather decidedly have not.

Digital organs can be seen as a legitimate advancement in organ technology. If they aren't, then where do we draw the line? Are electric actions OK? What about stop control systems? Pistons? Is tubular pneumatic action too recent? Tracker only? Barkers? Electric blowers? Only organ stops developed by 1600? What about clarinets and English horns, or flute triangulaires? Those were also developed in the last century. Celests are deliberately dissonant! Can't have those!

Are lightbulbs OK? They are ultimately a mere simulacrum of candles/fire.

via media seems prudent in such matters. To ban digital organs, merely on the basis of the mechanics of how they produce their tone vs. pipe organs, is a form of legalism and Neo-iconoclasm.

There's nothing fake about a painter using acrylic paints rather than going out and grinding up flowers to mix into egg whites. It's just a different chemistry, but the value of the art is not in the type of paint used on the canvas, but rather the icon that is created, and the spiritual offering behind it.

I always thought the judicious use of a cattle prod might get the basses on pitch.

.

I tried trawling through my old emails and I cannot find the OKC diocesan guidelines. Google doesn't turn anything up either on that particular front.

There is an EWTN article that address this, and mentions that the italian bishop's conference has explicitly banned the practice: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/prerecorded-music-at-mass-4830
This article also quotes De Musica Sacra:

"Finally, only those musical instruments which are played by the personal action of the artist may be admitted to the sacred liturgy, and not those which are operated automatically or mechanically."

https://www.rcan.org/sites/default/files/files/Music at Mass During Phase 3.pdf
The Diocese of Newark issued the following guidance, siting another document:

Pre-recorded music, even to support congregational singing, should not be used in the liturgy ​(​Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship​, 93).

And that will be a great way to ensure more organs would be replaced by pianos. Be careful what you ask for.

pianos were never approved for liturgy.

UPDATE

And, I might add, because of the subpar sound that a simulacrum produces, it has encouraged the overall tendency to even replace digital organs (simulacrum) with pianos (and dedicated organists with pianists) because of the mechanical and acoustic nature of the piano being a 'real' instrument. People will always prefer the real deal. It is a psychological disposition that is very subtle and insidious. Pianists are 'drawn' to the effort and organists are 'discouraged' from the effort. The whole convolution erodes the fact that the (real) organ IS and SHOULD be the only choice of instruments for the church and the liturgy.

And I take offense at being told that this discussion has no place in this thread. It ABSOLUTELY has everything to do with 'the mechanical nature' of instruments very much so. With the continuing development of simulacrum technology the line is more and more blurred to the point where even devoted organists will accept the counterfeits... and one counterfeit leads to another, and that is why the liturgy gets stretched to the point where it subtly encourages abuses by allowing recordings, MIDI sequencing, MP3, sound systems and microphones, and on the visual side, slide projections and more.

Even church architecture has suffered from this mentality where the 'real deal' is replaced with 'multi-functional' concepts and 'cost saving approaches'. It's just plain wrong and an insult to God who always demands the utmost for his holy dwellings.

And then where does all of this lead??? - to 'online church'... why even go to church! We can just deliver it into our own home through a copper wire!

In the end, God is disappointed and we severely handicap our very nature (fool ourselves and try to fool others) (but God is not fooled...) In the end, we limit severely our ability to take in the loftiness of heaven on earth and bar our own senses (hearing-word and music: seeing-art and architecture: touching- or perhaps NOT touching as much in respect of what is truly holy: tasting/smelling-perhaps NOT tasting before we receive the taste of heaven so that we hunger for the true bread, and by lifting the burning of incense that is truly pleasing to God, and not the smokes of Cain. We must endeavor with all our might to uphold the (REAL) True, the (REAL) Good, and the (REAL) Beautiful, be done with the counterfeits so that we and the rest of mankind can truly EXPERIENCE a taste of heaven on earth, as best we can make it. Otherwise, people will easily prefer the shopping mall, the concert hall and the movie theatre to our sorry polymeric offerings.

a reed organ

Reed organs were allowed as a toleration for churches in small communities due to financial and size constraints.