Rev. John Sembrat, O.S.B.M.
July 1995
One specific factor that is especially detrimental to the beauty and mystical character of our church music is the introduction of musical instruments in church services where they exert an uncontrollable secularizing influence, distracting the mind and heart of the faithful by diverting their attention from prayerful contemplation to a worldly and carnal kind of entertainment which certainly cannot be called authentic liturgical music.
It was not by some pure coincidence of historical circumstances that the Catholic Church of both East and West has regarded, down to the present day, unaccompanied chant to be her most appropriate mode of musical expression. This was a decision made from the very beginning, with a certain amount of deliberation, according to what was already indicated in the New Testament (Mt 26:30; Mk 14:26; Eph 5:18-20; Col 3:16-17; Acts 16:25-26), and clearly upheld and enforced by the Fathers of the early Church; a decision based on a profound consideration not of accidental historical circumstances, but rather, based on a realistic consideration of the very nature of the human person, the nature of the “Holy,” and the nature of the relation between the two as expressed in the liturgy of the Catholic Church, all considered in the light of the teaching of Sacred Scripture.
The early Fathers of the Church were unanimous and even vehement in their condemnation of musical instruments and the secular, theatrical forms of music they engendered (as were also several of the Greek philosophers and the Jewish rabbis). It is interesting to note, however, that they never condemned the use of instruments in the church. The context in which they were condemned was usually the banquet, wedding or theatre. In the Christian liturgy instruments were simply never used. The uproar and scandal brought about by such a desecration of the liturgy would have been recorded in patristic literature most profusely with extremely bitter and resounding anathemas (see: “The Meaning of the Patristic Polemic Against Musical Instruments,” by James McKinnon, Current Musicology 1: 1965, 77). In fact, it is their complete exclusion from the liturgy from the very beginning that the Fathers so highly extol as an expression of how the N.T is the true internalization and spiritual fulfilment of the more carnal, external and legalistic worship of the O.T. (Heb 10:1). This, probably, would also explain why there is seemingly so little recorded legislation from the ecumenical councils and synods of the Eastern Churches on this particular question. The writings of the Fathers and the musical practice implemented upon their authority has been essentially the law up to the present day.
This condemnation of instruments the Fathers base on two points: 1) Their power to incite immoral conduct, for instance, in the theatre, at banquets and weddings; 2) also, that they accompanied the various rituals of pagan idol worship, which idolatry permeated virtually all social functions, both public and private (see: Johannes Quasten, Music and Worship in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (Washington, D.C.: National Association of Pastoral Musicians, 1983), 15 and 26ff).
The following extracts taken from the works of the Fathers illustrate their thought on the matter. (See Music in Early Christian Literature by James McKinnon, Cambridge University Press, 1987. Reprinted with permission).
St. Basil (c.330-379), commenting on Psalm 59:
So the psalm was not written for the Jews of that time, but for us who are to be transformed, who exchange polytheism for piety and the error of idolatry for the recognition of him who made us, who choose moderation under the law in place of illegitimate pleasure, and who substitute psalms, fasting and prayer, for auloi [ancient oboe-like wind instruments], dancing and drunkenness. (Homilia in psalmum lix:, 2; PG XXIX, 464.) (McK. #135.)
St. John Chrysostom (c.347-407), commenting on the contrast between the sensual and depraved music of contemporary weddings and those recounted in the Bible (Jacob and Leah, Isaac and Rebecca):
Do you not see with what dignity weddings were celebrated in antiquity? Hear this, you who flutter after Satan’s pomp and who from the very start dishonor the nuptial solemnities. Were there auloi there? Were there cymbals, or diabolical dances? For what reason, tell me, do you straightway bring such shame into your house, and summon people from the stage and orchestra pit, so that with extravagant expense you spoiil the modesty of the maiden and make the groom more wanton. (In caput XXIX Genesim, Hom. LVI; PG LIV, 486.) (McK. #176.)
And also:
For marriage appears to be an honourable thing, both to us and to those without it; and it is indeed honourable. But when weddings are performed, there take place the sort of absurd practices of which you will now hear. For the majority are bound and misled by custom, since they do not discern the unnaturalness of these things, but instead require others to teach them. For then they introduce dancing, cymbals, auloi, shameful words and songs, drunkenness and carousing, and much such rubbish of the devil. (In I Corinthios, Hom. XII, 5; PG LXI, 103.) (McK. #183.)
The Greek historian Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (c.260-c.340) commenting on Psalm 91:
When formerly the people of the circumcision worshipped through symbols and types, it was not unreasonable that they raised hymns to God on psalteries and cithara [two ancient stringed instruments] … We, however, maintain the Jewish law inwardly, according to the saying of the Apostle: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is real circumcision something external and physical, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal” (Rom 2.28-9); and it is upon a living psaltery and an animate cithara and in spiritual songs that we render the hymn. And so more sweetly pleasing to God than any musical instrument would be the symphony of the people of God, by which, in every church of God, with kindred spirit and single disposition, with one mind and unanimity of faith and piety, we raise melody in unison in our psalmody. (In psalmum xci, 4; PG XXIII,1172-3.) (McK. #206.)
Theodoret (c.393-c.466), bishop of Cyrus (near Antioch), contrasts the forms of worship in the Old and New Testaments:
What he ordained in the Law, then, concerning these things, was because of their weakness, not their need or their intention. And he says this elsewhere: “Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing to me” (Jer 6.20). And again he cries: ‘Take away from me the sound of your songs; to the voice of your instruments I will not listen” (Amos 5.23). And there are many other such passages to be found, which show clearly that God prescribed these practices not because he had need of sacrifices, nor because he enjoyed their smoke, their savour, or the musical instruments, but because he was considering a remedy for them. (Graecorum affectionum curatio, de sacrificiis 34-5; PG LXXXIII, 1001-2.) (McK. #231.)
And:
It is not singing as such which befits the childish, but singing with lifeless instruments, and with dancing and finger clappers; wherefore the use of such instruments and other such things appropriate to those who are childish [i.e., spiritually immature] is dispensed with in the churches and singing alone has been left over. (Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos CVII; PG VI, 1353.) (McK. #232.)
According to the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, XXXII, 9), certain occupations had to be renounced before an individual practicing any one of them could qualify as a candidate for baptism:
If one of those who work upon the stage approaches, either man or woman, or charioteer, or gladiator, or runner, or wagerer, or athlete, or aulos player, or cithara player, or lyre player, or one who performs the pantomime, or a huckster [sic], let them desist or be rejected. (McK. #240.) [It must be remembered that all these occupations were consecrated to the gods, of whom help and success were also implored. They were normally accompanied before, during or after by the appropriate form of pagan cultic music. J. S. See Quasten, Ibid.]
In the Canons of Basil (written about 400 A.D., according to Quasten), we read an injunction similar to the preceding plus the following:
When a reader [lector] learns to play the cithara, he shall be taught to confess it. If he does not return to it, he will endure his punishment for seven weeks. If he persists in it, he must be discharged and excluded from the church. (Canon 74; Riedel, 267) (McK. #264)
It is true that certain scholars claim that a few of the Fathers were favourable to the use of instruments, but this most likely refers to their restricted use in the private homes of Christians (see: McKinnon, “The Meaning of the Patristic Polemic…” 71). Further, in the passages where the Fathers express acceptance of instruments specifical1y in worship, i.e., usually in their commentaries on the Psalms, they are commending the use of instruments allegorically, i.e., spiritually and not in practice, meaning that the Christian himself becomes the instruments by which he praises the Lord (as seen in the above quote from Eusebius). When these passages are put side by side with the clear and explicit condemnations of instruments made by the Fathers and legislation of the early Church (even in private life, as seen from above quotes), their allegorical/spiritual meaning cannot possibly be missed or tendentiously interpreted. For instance, the following quote from Pseudo-Origin (most likely Evagrius of Pontus) should make this perfectly clear:
Praise the Lord on the cithara, sing to him on the psaltery of ten strings, etc. The cithara is the practical soul set in motion by the commandments of God; the psaltery is the pure mind set in motion by spiritual knowledge. The musical instruments of the Old Testament are not unsuitable for us if understood spiritually: figuratively the body can be called a cithara and the soul a psaltery, which are likened musically to the wise man who fittingly employs the limbs of the body and the powers of the soul as strings. Sweetly sings he who sings in the mind, uttering spiritual songs, singing in his heart to God… (Selecta in psalmos XXXIIt 2-3; PG Xll, 1304.) (McK. #68.)
The great Doctors of the Church in the Middle Ages, such as, St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-74), simply repeated the teaching of the Fathers of the Church concerning the exclusion of musical instruments from the liturgy, restating the matter with certain additional refinements but adding nothing essentially new to the Church’s accepted position.
Re-evaluation of the Matter in Modern Times
The risks posed by the use of musical instruments in the Liturgy are inherent in the very nature of the situation itself and too grave to be ignored or denied. Even those of the Western Church (Latin Rite), who in recent times have become somewhat more favourable to the use of instruments in the Liturgy, admit there is a problem here. In his very extensive and thorough study of the matter entitled Papal Legislation on Sacred Music: 95 A.D. to 1977 A.D., (Copyright 1979 by the Order of St. Benedict Inc., Collegeville, Minnesota, The Liturgical Press, 1979. Excerpts reprinted with permission), Msgr. Robert F. Rayburn writes the following concerning the use of orchestral instruments in church:
The legislation of the Church concerning the use of orchestral instruments is far more restrictive than that of other subjects. The legislation usually mentioned that these instruments were to be allowed by way of exception rather than as a general practice.
That the instruments of the orchestra have been associated with the concert hall and the opera house has made the Church apprehensive lest the performers might wish to bring this same secular type of music into the worship services of the Church. The history of sacred music in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries has recounted that this has often been the case. The wording of the various documents which treat of instruments in church has time and again lamented that musicians have performed operatic and theatrical compositions during Mass and Vespers to the degradation and harm of the sacred ceremonies. The decrees have explicitly sought to eliminate such musical compositions, even under the threat of serious penalties. (pp. 398-399)
In other words, over three centuries of experience proves that the use of instruments in church simply cannot be properly controlled, i.e., consistently and for any length of time. Hence, the reason why certain documents require that permission for the use of instruments be granted for each individual case. They tend to introduce, with time if not immediately, worldly ostentation and remove all humility, contrition and contemplation. They draw the attention of the faithful to that self-gratifying entertainment condemned by the Church Fathers and away from the true purpose of Christian worship: “repentance as a way for salvation,” as our Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom teaches us.
Cardinal Ratzinger, who favours some use of instruments in the Latin Church, also feels compelled to admit the risks involved:
Perhaps it should be said that, where an instrument is concerned, there is a greater possibility of alienation from the spirit than in the case of the voice; music can slip away from or turn against the spirit, the more remote it is from the human being. Conversely, this would mean that, with instruments, the process of purification, of elevation to the spirit, must be considered with special care (Reprinted from Feast of Faith, by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, p. 121. © 1986 Ignatius Press, San Francisco. All rights reserved; reprinted with permission of Ignatius Press.)
Continuing in the same place, the Cardinal writes: “But here again it is this essential purification which has resulted in the development of the instruments of Westem music, endowing mankind with its most precious gifts …” This is certainly true and gladly admitted by any cultured person. However, no less a composer than Beethoven (1770-1827), the orchestral composer par excellence who has endowed mankind with some of those “most precious gifts,” has stated on more than one occasion that true church music must be performed unaccompanied. In a letter to K F. Zeiter, Director of Berlin’s Academy of Vocal Music, Beethoven wrote: “… I would go as far as to say that this style (a la capella [sic]) is the only true style for devotional music …” (Beethoven: Letters, Journals and Conversations. Translated and edited by Michael Hamburger. N.Y., Anchor Books, 1960, p. 191).
The composer Richard Wagner (1813-1883) was of a similar opinion. “To the human voice, the immediate vehicle of the sacred word, belongs the first place in the churches, and not instrumental additions or the trivial scraping found in most of the churches [sic] pieces to-day. Catholic Church music can regain its former purity only by a return to the purely vocal style.” And further: “The first step toward the decadence of genuine Catholic church music was the introduction of orchestra instruments. Their character and independent use have imparted to religious expression a sensuous charm, which has proved very detrimental, and has affected unfavourably the art of singing itself. The virtuosity of instrumentalists provoked imitation on the part of singers, and soon a worldly and operatic taste held full sway in church.” Gesammelte Werke, II, 337 and 335. Quoted in The Catholic Encyclopedia, N.Y., The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913, in the article “Music”, Vol. X, p. 651 and 655 respectively.)
This proves that those who really understand the nature of music, i.e., the great composers, also understand clearly and respect the Church’s privileged position and specific requirements in this area; they understand that there are various genres of music suitable to different purposes and that these genres are by no means interchangeable. If the theatre, discotheque, opera house, football game, concert hall, bar room, business office, film or high school prom can all have their own music suitable to their own needs, why should not the Church, as well, especially since it is by far the most important, exalted and oldest of all these institutions?
The danger of secular elements being introduced into the liturgy through the ostentatious virtuosity of vain performers is a serious enough problem where singers alone are concerned, and the Catholic Church is not the only religious institution that has had to contend with this problem throughout the extent of its history. According to Idelsolm, in the Jewish synagogue, following the destruction [i.e., of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.], all instrumental music, including liturgical, was forbidden, as a sign of mourning over the Temple. In this way, national mourning confirmed that opposition to secular music which already existed before the Temple’s destruction. (A. Z. Idelsohn. Jewish Music in its Historical Development. N. Y., Schocken Books, 1967, p. 93.) Yet, in spite of this, lead singers in the synagogues still displayed the desire to show off, and other traits of ostentatious virtuosos which were frequently criticized by the religious authorities (Alfred Sendrey. Music in Ancient Israel. N.Y., Philosophical Library, 1969, p.117).
All the experts that one can consult on Oriental Christian chant–Cavarnos, Wellesz, Papadopoulos, Strunk, Gardner–say precisely the same thing: that according to the teaching of the Church Fathers, legislation of the Church and actual practice, this music is purely vocal, i.e., without any instrumental accompaniment. Idelsohn remarks that by the strict order of the early Fathers of the Church, only one instrument, the human voice, was permitted in liturgical worship: this is observed in the Syriac, Jacobite, Nestorian and Greek churches to the present day. (Ibid., p. 96.)
Concerning also the chant of the Latin Rite (i.e., Gregorian chant), Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B., a noted scholar in the field, states that “Frequently the chant is accompanied on the organ, which thus adds a third dimension never intended by the original composers. Often this accompaniment totally falsifies the underlying modal structure. True chant must be unaccompanied.” ( The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, the article “Gregorian Chant,” Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of America, 1981, p. 761.) Reprinted with permission.
Legislation
In The Rudder, the collection of canon laws governing the Orthodox Church, we read: “…for it is on this account that only the human voice finds acceptance in the Church, on the ground that it is inherent in nature and unartificial, whereas the percussions and efflations produced by instruments are sent packing by the divine Fathers on the ground that they are too artificial.” (The Rudder. Ed. by D. Cummings. Chicago. The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1957. Footnote #1 to 11Interpretation11 of Canon LXXV of what the Orthodox regard as the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, p. 381.)
Within the context of our own Ukrainian Catholic Church, the matter of liturgical music was dealt with very competently in recent times in The Acts and Resolutions of the Lviv Archieparchial Synods of 1940-41-42-43, conducted under the guidance of the Servant of God Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky. (Ukrainian Millennium: Millennium Series No. 6, Winnipeg, 1984.) “The Decree on Liturgical Chant” states:
The employment of musical instruments in our Church is contrary to the character of our liturgical music. The Eparchial Synod urgently insists that this practice and this law would be observed precisely, and that no one would introduce any sort of musical instruments into our liturgical chant.
Also, it is stated that the melodies used for congregational singing must conform to our own traditions of liturgical chant; they must never be theatrical or dance like (p. 62, marked incorrectly as p. 61.)
Resolution #16 states:
“The Synod forbids the use of musical instruments in liturgical services in church; however it regards as permissible the participation of a wind orchestra during liturgical processions outside the church”(p. 64).
Resolution #13 forbids all concerts in church buildings.
Although the Decrees and Resolutions of these Synods were never ratified and promulgated by the proper authorities due to the outbreak of World War II, they did restate maybe even more clearly and precisely, in regards to church music at least, that which already was, and still is, in fact, the law.
Objections
1) Someone may object that it is not the musical instruments that are the problem but rather their abuse.
a) It should be made clear, first of all, that there is music that, by its very nature, is purely vocal (as already indicated above) and the addition of instruments would either ruin it completely or drastically modify its character beyond the conception and artistic intent of the composer. It is inconceivable that instruments could be added to, e.g., Bruckner1s Ave Maria (of 1861) or a Palestrina mass. Our Ukrainian liturgical music (both chant and choral) shares this exclusively vocal characteristic. This is simply a musical fact.
b) The Fathers of the Church made no distinction between the instruments and the music. It was all condemned because both were consecrated to the pagan gods at all cultic and civic functions along with the attendant immorality as mentioned above. The instruments and their specific kind of music grew together out of a pagan civilization and were designed to serve pagan ends. Therefore, the Fathers condemned them both without reserve at every opportunity. (See: McKinnon, “The Meaning of the Patristic Polemic …,” 72.)
2) This may be countered by saying that such was the case only as long as paganism existed, but through the constant efforts of Christianity, paganism has been exterminated over the centuries and, as Cardinal Ratzinger suggested in the above quote, in this new Christian environment, a purification took place in which new instruments and new music have been created free of all pagan associations.
This is only partially true and greatly oversimplifies the reality.
a) Paganism was never totally exterminated by any means. The vast majority of people in the world are still heathen. Enclaves of paganism, i.e., superstition, witchcraft and satanism (and today, the New Age Movement along with atheistic humanism and rampant secularism), always existed even in Europe in spite of centuries of Christian influence, just waiting for an opportunity to reassert themselves, which is precisely what we see in present day society with neo-paganism replacing Christianity all around us.
b) Man’s wounded nature with its sinful tendencies (a fact many find difficult even to admit today) will always remain with him to a greater or lesser degree, even in the most Christian of environments, enticing man to reject God and our Lord’s doctrine of the cross by means of an easy-going truce with “the world”, i.e., all the elements in society and within ourselves that are opposed to Christ.
c) Both the distinction and the struggle between the sacred and the profane, therefore, will remain till the consummation of the world at our Lord’s Second Coming, and this distinction can neither be denied nor ignored with impunity. Precisely because it is denied in many circles today, we are experiencing a crisis in faith, theology and liturgy, including liturgical music and art.
The Bible Itself Makes this Distinction Between Sacred and Profane
At a time of religious decadence, God sent prophets like Ezekiel to remind the priests of the Temple of their sacred duties and of how they are to instruct the people. In Ezekiel we read: “Her (Jerusalem’s) priests have done violence to my law and profaned what is sacred to me. They make no distinction between sacred and common, and lead men to see no difference between clean and unclean. They have disregarded my sabbaths, and I am dishonoured among them.” (22:26.) And again: “They (the priests) shall teach my people to distinguish the sacred from the profane, and show them the difference between clean and unclean.” (44:23.)
In the New Testament, we find our Lord constantly acting precisely on this principle of the distinction between the sacred and the profane and, usually, it seems, if not in every instance, it is in the context of a conflict with the profane. See, e.g., Mk 1:24; Jn 6:69; Mt 21:12-13; Jn 16:28, 33; 17:9; 17:14ff.
A) The Spiritual Principle
The primary notion in the relation between the sacred and the profane is that of the sacred or holy, in Hebrew qodesh or qadosh. The Semitic root of this word means 11to cut off’ or, “to separate,” signifying the idea of separation from the profane (Xavier Leon-Dufour. Dictionary of Biblical Theology. N.Y., The Seabury Press, 1983. Entry entitled “Holy,” 236.). This concept expresses God’s radical otherness and transcendence as Creator and Saviour. Sanctity is that which pertains most properly and exclusively to God, being the most inner, intimate essence of His being. This we fin powerfully expressed in Isaiah, Ch. 6, and also in our Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: “…You are God—ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, always existing and ever the same …”
Regarding the concept of cultic holiness in the Old Testament, it should be noted that holiness is the dominant quality in this relationship. The contact sanctifies and elevates the profane, but the profane does not negate holiness. What is profane may be used in any way or for any purpose, but what is holy can be used exclusively for worship. All persons or objects that have not been properly consecrated or made holy are to be excluded from liturgical cult. (John L. McKenzie. Dictionary of the Bible. N.Y., Macmillan Publishing Co., 1965. Entry entitled “Holy,” 366. Emphasis added.) This principle applies in its own way to the liturgy of the New Testament, as well, where all the vestments, utensils and elements must be of the finest quality, the bread and wine for the Eucharist, for instance, being made according to specific requirements laid down by the Church, which separates them immediately from all that is common or profane. Who is to say that the Church may not be permitted to apply this principle also to something as important as the music she uses in her very own liturgy?
The sacred, then, overpowers the profane, and by God’s loving mercy, communicates its holiness to it, purifying and elevating it and, where sin is involved, destroying it (as in the sacrament of penance). But this happens in varying degrees and different ways. It happens, first of all, partially, in a more external way, by dedicating or consecrating an object to God and use in his service without, however, changing in any way its inner nature, thus, in this sense, leaving it in the realm of the profane, but nonetheless more sacred than other objects not so consecrated. For instance, holy water, although it has a genuine power which demons fear and can ward off certain evils, nonetheless remains water after being blessed. Even the sacrament of marriage remains a reality of this life inasmuch as it will not exist in the next (Mt 22:30; Mk 12:25; Lk 20:35ff).
However, the sacred may also communicate itself in such a way so as to transform the profane entirely, changing its whole inner nature, thus removing it completely from the realm of the profane. In the Holy Eucharist, for example, the earthly realities of bread and wine become the heavenly realities of our Lord’s Body and Blood (Jn 6: 41). In the sacrament of baptism, the recipient becomes a “new creature” (2 Cor 5:17), being spiritually recreated, receiving a new nature, the nature of God Himself, that is, actually divinized, deified, given a share in God’s own life, through the sanctifying grace conferred by the sacrament. (“But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” Jn. 1:12-13. See also: 1 Pt 1:3-4; Gal 6:15; Eph 2:10; 4:23-24; Col 3:9-10.)
We thus participate in God’s own nature, the God who spoke to us by the voice of his prophets, by the voice, the “musical instrument” (Eusebius of Caesarea, quoted by McKinnon in Music in Early Christian Literature, #216, pp 100-101) of the humanity of his own Son. It is fitting that we respond to God’s call in like manner, in a manner worthy of Him, i.e., by the use of our own voice sanctified, divinized and consecrated by baptism, using the very words He taught us. Musical instruments can be consecrated only externally like any other profane, mundane creature, as explained above. They cannot be sanctified, deified, i.e., spiritually recreated in their inner nature to conform to and unite to the nature of God Himself in order to become His adopted children (Rom 8:12ff).
Therefore, the most fitting and proper praise can be offered to God only by means of this one living instrument, the human voice, the only instrument created by God Himself and consecrated to His praise by the sacrament of baptism, in contrast to all other musical instruments which are manufactured by man and are, therefore, artificial and by nature too far removed from the spirit and the word by which alone we are to worship God. The “new creature” in Christ requires a new and fully spiritual mode of worship: circumcision is, therefore, replaced by baptism; animal sacrifices by the Holy Eucharist; inanimate musical instruments by the living and sanctified human voice. This is the “remedy” Theodoret was referring to in the quote above.
B) The Ascetical Principle
This new spiritual life of grace given us by baptism is a pure gift from God. It immediately makes us be, on the spiritual/mystical level, children of God (Col 2:12,13,20; 3:1-4; Rom 6:4ff), yet at the same time, due to the harm done to our nature by original and personal sin, we must constantly strive to become what we already are, i.e. to live up to the privilege of being called to live in Christ. “I … beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called … until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, and mature manhood, to the ·measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ …” (Eph 4:1,13). Growth and perseverance in this spiritual life depend upon a systematic effort on our part to wage war upon, to gain and maintain control over our lower nature which tends to draw us away from Christ to the world. “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness …” (Col 3:5).
This effort to gain victory and control over our sinful passions and weaknesses is called asceticism. It is an essential requirement in the life of every Christian (Gal 5:16ff). Our Lord makes this plain in His doctrine of the cross: “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Mk 8:34). St. Paul several times contrasts heathen (worldly) and Christian (spiritual) behaviour, the former being based on self-indulgence and disregard of others, the latter, on self-control, sacrifice and charity towards others (Gal 5:16ff; Eph 4:17ff; Col 3:1ff). To be spiritually mature in Christ, the Christian must practice this self-denial which lessens his attachment to earthly creatures and his dependence upon material, sensible externals. “For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil 3:3).
Authentic Christianity, therefore, is also ascetical (as it requires of us constant repentance and conversion): it is self-denying, not self-gratifying; other-worldly, not this worldly. This is one difference between genuine religion and mere sentimentality, another being the rationality and orientation towards objective truth of the former, and the irrational emotionalism and subjectivism of the latter. According to this principle of Christian asceticism, therefore, we can sometimes, paradoxically, derive more benefit from earthly creatures by giving up, that is, sacrificing their use. This is precisely what an alcoholic is required to do. The Great Fast (Lent) is described in the Byzantine liturgy as a “mystical banquet.” Our Lord and St. Paul recommend the practice of celibacy for the kingdom of heaven as superior to marriage and the actual use of sexuality (Mt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:1-8,38). Progress in prayer and the spiritual life depends upon (among other things) how ready we are to sacrifice all consolations, sweetness and emotional satisfaction when they are withdrawn from us. Do we pray out of true love of God with no ulterior motives, or is our prayer motivated by a selfish, immature desire for emotional and/or social gratification by which we would actually be exploiting God for our own ends?
The example of archheretic Arius (c. 270-336) may provide some instruction. Arius taught that Christ was a creature created out of nothing like any other creature, not equal to or of the same substance as the Father. He drew the greater part of the Catholic Church in the Roman Empire into heresy, spreading his teaching by means of his book Thalia (The Banquet), written partly in prose, partly in verse, which probably contained some of the songs he wrote to disseminate his teachings. These songs were in a popular idiom, i.e., worldly, catchy, entertaining; they quickly circulated throughout the Greek-speaking regions of the Empire. No less a genius and astute critic than St. Athanasius The Great himself speaks of the “dissolute meter of the work and of its effeminate melodies.” (W. A. Jurgens. The Faith of the Early Fathers: Volume I. Collegeville, Minnesota, The Liturgical Press, 1970, pp. 275-276.) A very good example of how the devil can use worldly music to corrupt the faith and spiritual lives of countless numbers of Christians.
Basing herself on these two principles of spirituality and asceticism which are essential to the Christian life, the Church, therefore, has determined that, considering the weakness of human nature, the non-use of musical instruments in the Liturgy would be actually more beneficial for her faithful.
3) Some pastors may object that if we strictly observe such liturgical prescriptions and do not permit what many young couples are requesting, they will leave our Rite and possibly the Catholic Church as well, and go somewhere else.
In reply to this objection, we should consider first what kind of music it is that is often requested. Most, if not all, pastors have had first-hand experience of these matters. Requested and played either by live performers or from pre-recorded tape or CD (which alone is enough to profane and cheapen the celebration of a sacrament—and, are we now about to start using pre-recorded music for the Divine Liturgy because we have no choir or cantor to sing it?!) is music like: ‘Sunrise, Sunset’ from Fiddler on the Roof; Pachelbel’s Canon in D; the ‘Wedding March’ from Wagner’s opera Lohengrin; the Overture to the Marriage of Figaro by Mozart; or popular love songs in a folk or rock idiom without the slightest reference to God or religion. (A similar situation exists regarding funerals, as well.) In today’s society, where secularism and humanistic atheism are prevalent and people no longer have a clear knowledge and deeper grasp of religion, they tend to confuse what is sentimental with what is religious, what is emotional with what is spiritual, feelings are confused with reason and logic, and what they like and find personally gratifying, they often confuse with what is proper; but experience proves that the two often do not coincide, especially when it involves the question of proper church music. We must remember that “There is a time and a place for everything” and “Everything in its place.”
When such combinations and compromises are made in the wedding ritual, the sacred is profaned; the ritual is turned into something more like a neo-pagan fertility rite rather than a sacrament of the Catholic Church. When there is someone who is, in the fullest sense of the term, a hired entertainer, singing away in the church about anything but God and the Christian ideal of marriage, with his/her back to the altar, on the steps to the sanctuary or actually in the sanctuary, motioning and vocalizing in the manner of a night club singer with a microphone in one hand, accompanied by folk or rock instruments just as we see at concerts of this type of music, then it should be plain to all that the limits of propriety have been grossly overstepped.
Further, the irony is indeed great when one understands correctly that the composers themselves (of Broadway plays, operas and all the above) never intended any of this music to be performed in church! Even the oratorio Messiah by Handel, one of the most profoundly religious and moving of all compositions, was intended by the composer strictly as an entertainment for the concert hall.
It is the pastor1s obligation as a representative of the Church to guard the sacraments from all manner of unbecoming and sacrilegious celebration. These young couples are better served by being treated straightforward as rational human beings capable of understanding the teaching of the Church when offered them. The fact must be accepted that some may reject the Church1s liturgical “restrictions” and decide to go elsewhere, just as many of our Lord’s disciples did. (Jn 6:66.) Jesus did not call them back promising to adjust his teaching to their expectations. “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lk 10:16).
Marriage preparation is one of those rare opportunities to instruct and call people back to a more Christian way of life and understanding of our Ukrainian Rite and traditions. If they are properly disposed and of good will, they will listen. If, after some explanation, they do reject the Church’s liturgical prescriptions regarding its music, this must be seen as an indication (again, sadly proven only too frequently by pastoral experience) that they are also not properly disposed to understand and accept the Church’s teaching on the true meaning and obligations of marriage itself. If they cannot accept the Church’s authoritative teaching on rubrics and the appropriate music for the sacrament of marriage, it is very likely they will reject the Church’s authority in other areas as well, and observe only selectively (if at all) her teaching on matters of even greater importance, such as, the grave immorality of artificial contraception and abortion, marital faithfulness and permanence of the marriage bond, the reception of -confession and Holy Communion before the reception of the sacrament of matrimony (a sometimes neglected requirement which, in many cases,. leads to a sinful reception of the sacrament), weekly attendance at the Divine Liturgy, frequent reception of the sacraments of confession and the Holy Eucharist, the obligation to raise their children in this manner, etc. “He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much” (Lk 16:10).
Engaged couples often refer to the reception of the sacrament of matrimony as “our marriage”. Although this may be true in a certain limited sense, they should be reminded that:
a) Their marriage belongs first of all to God. The contract, i.e., the natural reality of marriage with all its attendant conditions and obligations, was created and set down by God Himself(not by Hollywood, T.V., sleazy novels or even the contracting parties!) when He created Adam and Eve exclusively for each other and commanded them: “Be fruitful and multiply …” (Gn 1:28).
b) It belongs to Christ who raised it to the dignity of a sacrament, giving it a totally new spiritual meaning and sanctifying power which the prescribed readings of the marriage ritual point out (Eph 5:21-33; Jn 2:1- 11). Their marital union is a reflection of the union between Christ and His Church, pure and unspotted, untouched by profane hands. It derives all its sacred value and meaning precisely from this fact. It is not the Church which receives meaning and existence from their marriage but, rather, their marriage which receives meaning and existence from the Church. To be counted worthy by the Church to receive the sacrament (not just the civil contract) of marriage is for them a very special privilege and honour, not the other way around!
c) As a consequence of a) and b) above, their marriage also belongs to the Catholic Church of which they are members (or, at least one of them is) by reason of their baptism. (And for this reason, they must be registered members of a particular parish.) Baptism makes them spiritually part of Christ (as explained above regarding sacred and profane) by making them members of His Body, that is, the Catholic Church. For this reason, their marriage comes under the care, guidance and authority of the Church. All the sacraments have been entrusted by Christ to the Church for their proper celebration and safekeeping. The ritual of the sacrament of marriage is created by each particular rite of the Catholic Church according to the nature of the sacrament itself and is made to express the Church1s understanding of that nature in a clear, dignified, uncompromisingly sacred, sacramental manner. No other ritual than that prescribed by a particular rite of the Church can be used.
d) By celebrating their marriage in church before a Catholic priest they are proclaiming to the world that this marriage belongs to Christ, and that they intend to live it that way from beginning to end, in order to become the beneficiaries of the graces attached to the faithful fulfilment of the requirements and duties of this particular sacrament. If they do not sincerely believe this, they will be acting publicly in a way that is simply dishonest.
Summary
Concerning the use of music in the liturgy, there is a whole gamut of possibilities the Catholic Church had to consider from the very beginning, ranging from the one extreme of permitting all kinds of music and musical instruments to the other extreme of banning music altogether from her worship. Both extremes have had their advocates throughout history. However, in her wisdom, the Church, knowing well that Christ came to redeem the whole man, soul and body, understands also that the worship of embodied spirits such as we are, cannot be an exclusively spiritual affair. The soul expresses itself through the body, belief and thought must reveal themselves by means of some external, physically perceptible form. Just as a sacrament such as, baptism, is a spiritual, sanctifying action of Christ mediated through His visible Church, i.e., is administered with sensibly perceptible words, actions and matter, so all forms of public, communal worship must be expressed in an appropriate external, sensibly perceptible manner.
The Church has, therefore, wisely chosen a middle course by permitting the use of music, but only on her own specific terms, i.e., a particular type of music and only in a purely vocal form. This form of music is most appropriate for her worship because:
a) The word, i.e., the texts of Sacred Scripture, prayers and hymns must be heard without interference from other musical sources.
b) This form of sacred music separates the ritual of the Church clearly from the activities and ceremonies of daily secular life and from every other religion, as well. Even if other religions may, at times, use purely vocal music, it will be for reasons other than those the Catholic Church has for its employment of this form of music.
c) This form of music is least subject to abuse by being turned into worldly entertainment and a vain, immodest virtuosic display on the part of the performer.
d) It truly serves the spiritual part of our nature through the senses (as does an authentic icon) without, however, going to either extreme: it does not, in some unchristian way, sensually regale them, as, for instance, many forms of pagan and contemporary popular music do (acting as a seductive drug or anaesthetic, eliciting an ecstasy of the senses, i.e., swallowing up the spirit in the senses as a means of release, rather than elevating the senses into the spirit. – Ratzinger, Ibid., pp.118-119); nor does it, in some Manichaean/Albigensian manner, deny their existence and value. Under the Church’s supervision, authentic liturgical chant promotes the proper balance between all the levels of the human personality necessary for a truly well-ordered and integrated spiritual life.
Conclusion
Commenting in general on the present state of liturgical music in the Catholic Church, Msgr. Robert Rayburn writes the following: “Almost everyone is making music in the churches, except trained musicians. Now one hears only unison singing, dull in style, and often secular in type and no different from that heard at ball games, football rallies, and picnics … The liturgy has been musically degraded and art music has been removed from worship … (Ibid., p. 408. Emphasis added.)
At the present time, a similar situation must be rectified in certain parts of. our Ukrainian Catholic Church as well. But this can be done only by the proper utilization and performance of the music endemic to our Church. The introduction of foreign musical forms and styles (secular and religious), and the use of all musical instruments are simply proscribed by both the traditions of our Church and its legislation.
