The controversy in the Catholic Church is that the Second Vatican Council ushered in many, many pervasive changes to the liturgy. First and foremost is the move to the vernacular from uniform use of Latin. The vernacular liturgy means that there are hundreds of different texts requiring musical settings and they all require their own linguistic expert composers to handle that. Vernacular hymns also lend themselves to regional and profane instrumentation, so the use of guitars, tambourines, flutes, autoharps, rockstar drums and bass really took off with these reforms.
In principle, the Catholic Church doesn't object to a particular type of instrument being used for sacred music, as long as the text is sacred and the instrument is not overtly profane. BUT she still exhorts us to give "pride of place" to certain classical styles of sacred music, the Latin language, and the pipe organ itself. That's still non-negotiable, but really falls by the wayside when you consider restrictions on budget and talent. There are not that many professional-volunteer organists or Gregorian-chant schola directors to go around.
So the reality is that any church that did have a bona fide pipe organ, or even a good electronic one, these gathered dust while people slung their acoustic guitars and tambourines around while playing music that's indistinguishable from Simon & Garfunkel. I mean it didn't necessarily get that bad, but we did practically abandon those classical styles in favor of new vernacular experimentation.
In practice, Catholic parishes exhibit a wide disparity of musical style, and this will be tuned by the liturgists and pastors according to the needs and tastes of their faithful. Many pastors find it advantageous to mix Latin, classical, a cappella, and modern CCM all in the same liturgy, or some will segregate it out so that Traditionalists can enjoy a liturgy dedicated to traditional music, singing, and instrumentation.
What are the implications of constructing brand-new traditional pipe organs in our two "flagship" churches? What does it mean that our previous bishop wrote down a series of four documents on the form and function of sacred music? Regionally, they have set the tone and established a legacy for decades to come. Pastors may do what they like, but Cathedral worship is often the "Gold Standard" for a diocese to imitate and promote.
At the very least, constructing a permanent pipe organ in a church is a capital investment that can't be easily shoved aside. The pastors and parish councils will indeed be very reluctant to sideline something that cost 5-6 figures in favor of "easier" music.
Interesting, thanks. I guess I didn't realize there was that much variance and mostly associated modern instrumentation with american protestants. The only catholic churches I've been to have been eastern rite which is outwardly mostly the same as what I'm familiar with.
I still don't really intuit the distinction between instruments and styles you're making but I believe you that it's there. I can't see how any instrument is inherently profane, but that is simplified by the tradition that all of them are inappropriate for liturgy. Once you've permitted any you need a criteria to exclude the rest. It seems like the catholic church is very much in the process of working out the contours of that.
In principle, the Catholic Church doesn't object to a particular type of instrument being used for sacred music, as long as the text is sacred and the instrument is not overtly profane. BUT she still exhorts us to give "pride of place" to certain classical styles of sacred music, the Latin language, and the pipe organ itself. That's still non-negotiable, but really falls by the wayside when you consider restrictions on budget and talent. There are not that many professional-volunteer organists or Gregorian-chant schola directors to go around.
So the reality is that any church that did have a bona fide pipe organ, or even a good electronic one, these gathered dust while people slung their acoustic guitars and tambourines around while playing music that's indistinguishable from Simon & Garfunkel. I mean it didn't necessarily get that bad, but we did practically abandon those classical styles in favor of new vernacular experimentation.
In practice, Catholic parishes exhibit a wide disparity of musical style, and this will be tuned by the liturgists and pastors according to the needs and tastes of their faithful. Many pastors find it advantageous to mix Latin, classical, a cappella, and modern CCM all in the same liturgy, or some will segregate it out so that Traditionalists can enjoy a liturgy dedicated to traditional music, singing, and instrumentation.
What are the implications of constructing brand-new traditional pipe organs in our two "flagship" churches? What does it mean that our previous bishop wrote down a series of four documents on the form and function of sacred music? Regionally, they have set the tone and established a legacy for decades to come. Pastors may do what they like, but Cathedral worship is often the "Gold Standard" for a diocese to imitate and promote.
At the very least, constructing a permanent pipe organ in a church is a capital investment that can't be easily shoved aside. The pastors and parish councils will indeed be very reluctant to sideline something that cost 5-6 figures in favor of "easier" music.