It’s been 100 years since Pope Pius X wrote a Papal letter to the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, which outlined the then freshly, minted pope’s decree governing sacred music. In the letter dated November 22, 1903, Pope Pius X explained in explicit detail the following Instructions on Sacred Music:
- I General principles
- II. The different kinds of sacred music
- III. The liturgical text
- IV. External form of the sacred compositions
- V. The singers
- VI. Organ and instruments
- VII. The length of the liturgical chant
- VIII. Principal means
In the section regarding instruments, the pope had the following to say:
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…
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.
21. In processions outside the church the Ordinary may give permission for a band, provided no profane pieces be executed. It would be desirable in such cases that the band confine itself to accompanying some spiritual canticle sung in Latin or in the vernacular by the singers and the pious associations which take part in the procession.
How does this relate to saxophones you ask? Well according to an article published in the National Post, a composer had written saxophones into the mass, and Pope Pius X didn’t like it. According to the National Post:
[Pope Pius X] prohibited instruments that could cause “disgust or scandal,” and everybody knew which one he meant. The creation of Adolphe Sax (1814-1894), a virtuoso designer from Belgium, sounded to Pius like the work of the devil.
If that sounds a bit familiar, it’s likely because you’ve at least heard of, if not read, Michael Segell’s book, The Devil’s Horn: The Story of the Saxophone, from Noisy Novelty to King of Cool. I admit I haven’t read the book yet. It is on my list of books to buy for 2013.
That said, I have read enough reviews and excerpts of the book to have a pretty good idea what it’s about.
I’d have to see exactly what Segell cites as his source for the sax in the mass story. The research I did, didn’t turn up any sources. Nonetheless, the argument can certainly be made for the fact that saxophones are noisy or frivolous instruments. Lots of others have made that same argument, but that’s a discussion for another day.
Suffice to say, if Segell is correct, then the saxophone was not, and still isn’t—since I haven’t found anything to say that Pope Pius X’s decree regarding the Instruction on Sacred Music has been repealed or modified—welcome in the Catholic Church. Sure, local parishes might use a sax from time to time, but according to a former pope, es ist verboten.
Photo by 3dom. Source: Flickr
Somehow this photo I saw on Flickr years ago, takes on a whole new meaning. Interesting…
What can be said about playing Motown and funk music on the saxophone in local venues, not in church, but also singing in church choir?
After some years the idea crept into me that there is a precedent for the use of the devils horn in church;
It is common knowledge that the devils favorite string instrument is the violin.
Ah but of course… Good thinking thinking Theo. I had totally forgotten this 1979 classic from the Charlie Daniels Band…
Found another tale concerning the musical instrument choice of the devil.
Francisco ‘El Hombre’ defeated the devil playing a Höhner Concertina according to a Colombian folk story.
Still no saxophones mentioned.
I am beginning to think that the Sulfer in his breath plays havoc with his reeds.
Searching the library site of the Vatican there is only one reference to a saxophone, not connected to Pius X.
The general idea about using musical instruments in church is (musicae sacrae):
“For, if they are not profane or unbecoming to the sacredness of the place and function and do not spring from a desire to achieve extraordinary and unusual effects, then our churches must admit them, since they can contribute in no small way to the splendor of the sacred ceremonies, can lift the mind to higher things, and can foster true devotion of the soul.”
This can be interpreted as a condemnation of saxophones. The Holton model 666, also known as the devils horn :devil2: , seems to be a late marketing reaction.
The catholic chuch have neglected this provocation and also facilitated the use of a saxophone in church in the Gregorian Chant and Saxophone Improvisations in the cathedral of Worms (2002).
This makes me think that they will officially accept the saxophone in a few centuries time.
Hi there Theo.
Thank you for this bit of research. I had no idea that the Vatican’s library would have a website. Interesting…
I didn’t know if you were yanking my chain about the Holton Model 666—”Devil’s Horn—so I had to look it up. That’s funny. It does make one wonder if it wasn’t a swipe at the Church. Surely Holton could have picked another number to represent this model.
At the rate the Catholic accepts change, I figure we’ll see an acceptance of the saxophone around the next millennium. 😉
Hi Helen,
As a footnote, two more number related comments on the subject of the catholic church and saxophones.
According to my son Jona the number of the beast was
wrongly translated, it should be, according to his sources, 616. So Holton could have picked another number for there saxophone.
I think that the next millenium is a bit late for the catholic recognition of the saxophon.
Shall we to try to push this event to the year 2841, 1000 years after the first demonstration in Brussel ❓
Think about it, no hurry.
Hi Theo.
Sorry to take so long to reply. Here’s Kim Slavo’s (The Sax Doctor’s) photos of the mythical beast. Apparently 666 is indeed correct, and so it isn’t so mythical after all. 😉
Hi Helen,
From Kim Slavo’s pictures you can see how small the number 666 is on this saxophone. If Holton wanted to sell it as the devils horn they should have emphasized it more and would ad some unholy signs.
So I presume it is just a nickname.
As an afterthought;
For a Holton it will have a very clear sound due to the nickel. Maybe as shrill as the trumpets in hell.