Choir Conundrum

[Phemie]

Thanks Father. I see what you mean now. I was thinking of a single cantor leading the singing as opposed to a soloist performing on her own.

That raises another question. At our cathedral, there are seven Sunday Masses. At some of them, a single cantor leads the singing. At others, a choir singing in the vernacular leads the singing. But at the most solemn Mass, at 11 am, the choir regularly sings Latin polyphonic settings of the Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei. I greatly appreciate it, but certainly no one is singing along.

One of the options the GIRM gives for the Gloria is for the choir to sing it alone. No such option is given for the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei.

The options for the Entrance, Offertory, and Communion Chants include the choir singing them alone. So the choir could do great things with the Entrance, Offertory, and Communion antiphons and use simple Latin settings of the Ordinary so that the congregation could participate.

The only ‘hymn’ where the GIRM gives no options is this one:

1. When the distribution of Communion is over, if appropriate, the Priest and faithful pray quietly for some time. If desired, a Psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the whole congregation.

In practice, this is the place where you usually get a solo.

 

[FrDavid96]

…But at the most solemn Mass, at 11 am, the choir regularly sings Latin polyphonic settings of the Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei. I greatly appreciate it, but certainly no one is singing along.

That’s comes (kinda, sorta) under the heading of “from time to time.” Also, there’s an important distinction to be made from saying that “only the choir sings” to saying “only the choir is permitted to sing, to the exclusion of everyone else.” While I can’t say that I know, I rather suspect that no one is telling the non-choir people that they are prohibited from participating.

 

[rondirect]

I wouldn’t have dreamed of trying to change what the former was singing, and if my current choir director decides she no longer wants a Basso Profundo, all she has to do is say it, I’ll thank her for allowing me to sing previously, and I’m gone.

Trust me, my friend, that will never happen for the sake of loosing a good voice in a choir! Now, if you are a trouble maker, disruptive, constant complainer, a come to Mass - skip rehearsal type of guy, that would be a different story. Been there a few times.

 

[rondirect]

I must say that I find projection screens unbecoming, inappropriate and completely beneath the dignity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

They are, by their very nature, an illusion. They are intended to deceive the viewer by making a wall appear to be a book.

It isn’t about rejecting technology or about refusing to change with the times. Digital, recorded, and projected media has it’s place. But that place is not within the Mass.

I posted this knowing that I would get negative responses. In my diocese, more the half the Catholic churches use projection. It was my pastors decision about 7 years ago. Actually, our Cathedral church was the first to install them. With positive feedback, many other churches followed suit. In all of these past 7 years, not one complaint, only positive responses and all our English and Spanish Masses use it, except the early Sunday Mass.

In the creation of the slides, those who prepare them, including myself, use a professional fee-based site to create dignified slides. Their is no intention to make this media an illusion or ever deceive our congregations in any way, shape, or form, especially not to make the wall look like a book. I’ve seen some churches use this media with slides created by what seems to be a 5 year old, that are distracting and distasteful, hard to see and rather annoying. We do our best not to fall into that category. Because of the increase of our diocesan churches adding this media, they have created a document regarding the tasteful use and creation of the same.

Projection works very well for us and from what I hear from other churches here as well. The people do love it and by their positive reaction, they do not think it “completely beneath the dignity of the Holy Sacrifice of Mass.” Done correctly it does not do that. For the most part, we are not used to this type of media during Mass and I can understand this reaction to it.

I am sure that I am not alone here. I am sure that others on this board are in churches that use this media. Projection works wonderfully for us; it’s here to stay. No one one has left our church complaining about it yet.

 

[rondirect]

I can understand that. I really believe that different areas of the U.S. and other countries, have different views on what is tasteful and and what is not, what is proper and what is not. My new pianist/organist is from the northeast, from a church requesting only traditional hymns. In my “blended” style of music for Mass, she had to learn a lot of new things. She told me that projection screens would never make it there and any song other than the old standards were taboo, so much that she received complaints regarding newer music.

Please do not get me wrong: If you are totally against projection or for that matter, contemporary songs, that’s just fine and dandy. It boils down to what your community feels comfortable with and I’m all for that. No argument for or against, just kind discussion.

 

[rondirect]

Screens are starting to become all the rage in our region, largely because of the work of a few vehement individuals following a very narrow vision of how the church needs to grow and progress. Because I’m young, everyone expects me to be totally on board, and I hate them. I’ve begged my pastor on numerous occasions not to give in to the grumblings of others (fortunately, I think we’re of the same mind in this regard).

Casslean, it is obvious how I personally feel about this type of media in the church. I assure you that I am not a vehement individual or narrow visioned. The church will continue to grow and progress in many areas. Something does not become a rage, IMO, if it does not work or met by a multitude of disagreements. Pastors would not agree on this type of media in their church if so. It is very hard for me to believe that a “few vehement individuals following a very narrow vision of how the church needs to grow and progress,” have such power to affect many churches to make this the “rage.”

Personally, I would not listen to those who think that you are young that you should be on board with this. But, did you ever think that they are probably describing you as vehement and narrow visioned because of you hating (a very strong word) this media in church?

Casslean, you have the right to your opinion, as do others, and I respect that, but please don’t consider me as vehement and narrow visioned as you do others that like this media in church.

 

[casslean]

Casslean, you have the right to your opinion, as do others, and I respect that, but please don’t consider me as vehement and narrow visioned as you do others that like this media in church.

I did not say, nor was I suggesting that all individuals who support screens in church are “vehement” or “narrow-visioned”. I was describing that, in our region, there is a group who has a very specific vision of how the church should progress, and who are very ardent in proclaiming that vision, and generally unwilling to listen to contrary opinions. This group is the one generally promoting the use of screens.

Screens might be popular; that doesn’t necessarily make them a positive development. I think @FrDavid96 raised very valid points against their use, particularly in Mass, and my own experience has been that they are a distraction to the Mass experience. They add nothing that can’t be achieved with printed missals and choir books (which is what our contemporary choir provides), and largely serve to pull attention away from the drama and action of the Mass. Our minds and attention should be on the sacrifice taking place at the altar, not on a screen off to the side.

 

[Reuben_J]

Our minds and attention should be on the sacrifice taking place at the altar, not on a screen off to the side.

Our cathedral limits the use of screen only to the lyrics of the hymn, perhaps for this reason. However, many churches now do use the screen where everything in the order of the mass are projected out. They are almost paperless.

Children and young adults do not like to take hymn books or missal when they attend mass. Whereas I could repeat the mass, many children today cannot. I am worried about that. Screen perhaps is an avoidable necessity to address this in those parishes or inadvertently, they are encouraging paperless/bookless practice in the mass.

I would see the use of screen, smart phones and tablets as going to be more prevalent rather than less.

 

[pnewton]

I posted this knowing that I would get negative responses. In my diocese, more the half the Catholic churches use projection.

I have always looked at the idea very negatively myself, as I find it aesthetically displeasing. I had not thought of the benefit of increased participation. I might look into some such technology, if I could find one that could balance the aesthetic with the practical. Overhead projection works fine in a school gym for Mass as it is not incongruent. I may think more on this.

 

[rondirect]

They add nothing that can’t be achieved with printed missals and choir books (which is what our contemporary choir provides), and largely serve to pull attention away from the drama and action of the Mass. Our minds and attention should be on the sacrifice taking place at the altar, not on a screen off to the side.

Casslean, I realize that you really didn’t mean ALL who support screens in worship are that, but you did not clarify, and seemed to place ALL in the way you wrote it. I take no offense; just wanted to be clear with you.

But, seriously, do you really think that a few in your corner of the universe are so powerful that pastors in all the churches in this new rage of screens bow down and submit? If a pastor dislikes them, I promise you, they will not be in his church. Period.

You’re right: The screens do not add nothing that can’t be achieved with printed books. Gee, I never thought of the Mass as a drama, but if that is what it is to you, so be it. Additionally, your right again: The screens should not “largely” (really?) serve to pull attention away from the action taking place on the altar. However, the action of moving your eyes slightly left or right is up to you, just like the person next to you can read along with the priest, with their heads down and buried in the missal. At least with the screens, you head is erect and facing the altar. So, which is the distraction then: The screens in front of you or the missal down in front of you? Just like the the screens could pull your attention away from the sacrifice on the altar, so can the stained glass windows behind the Sanctuary, the altar server positioning themselves to ring the bells, the other clergy, the crucifix or artwork behind the altar or on the altar itself, the flowers, the crooked stole on the priest, the nice watch he is wearing. Distractions are everywhere, so please do not single out the screens as the main attraction, uh, distraction here. They only are if you make them be. When programmed correctly, they are actually a positive aid in worship; instead of looking in a missal or song book, you can look forward and follow along with all the songs, acclamations and responses in order, instead of searching for them in the pew books, especially if you are new, a visitor used to a different publisher of missals and song books, etc. Ever since we installed these projectors and screens, the people are singing out and responding better with their heads out of books. That’s a fact.

Father David has his points of value to you because they are in line with what you believe, at the same time respecting his opinion as I do yours. Some priests will agree with him and some will not. My pastor insisted on them just like so many churches in my diocese. Our congregations love it and find no fault, no distraction in their use; plus they are not an illusion by nature, nor intended to deceive. Technology does have a place within the Mass, otherwise we would be without microphones, head sets for priests, listening devices for the hard of hearing, recording equipment for the home bound, etc.

 

[rondirect]

I have always looked at the idea very negatively myself, as I find it aesthetically displeasing. I had not thought of the benefit of increased participation. I might look into some such technology, if I could find one that could balance the aesthetic with the practical. Overhead projection works fine in a school gym for Mass as it is not incongruent. I may think more on this.

To be honest, I questioned it myself the day our pastor said for me to investigate this very costly adventure. The 8000 lumen Panasonic projectors with long throw lenses (did not want hanging ones from the ceiling) cost about $20,000 each, plus the auto hide screens (9 X 15). Just to replace the bulbs every few years will cost you about $1400. We have the space since the church is as wide as it is long; people sit 1/2 circle around the Sanctuary.

pnewton, I can see your point here. Not every church can support this type of media in a pleasing way, especially older churches with beautiful artwork and a difficult position of the screens problem and ones that are narrow and long. A lot to consider. I was fortunate.

 

[Ann_Stanton]

Some people remember the old fashioned screens used in the 1960 and 1970’s. They were used in order that the parish would not have to pay for missals and hymn books. A number of people did not like the screen. Also, it was not paying royalties for music used at Mass. If your area if happy with the screens, then keep them. Please realize others may not agree with you based on their experiences and parish buildings.

 

[promethian_rule]

There are two issues, really. 1. Anyone who is interested should be allowed to sing for Sundays and feasts. 2. It is wrong that women have zero opportunity to sing Sundays and feasts.

To answer 1, no, not everyone who is interested should be allowed to sing in the choir at mass. Just like readers and other lay assistants, members of the choir should be upstanding members of the community that live a life according to the faith. This is to not scandalize the church. Singing in the choir itself is not a right, but a privilege

That said, if there’s only one opportunity for a person who is properly comported to serve to sing, they should not be excluded from doing so only on the basis of gender… but then to flip that again, the “fairness” of the situation is to the determination of your local pastor. Give it to the priest to decide, as he must ultimately determine what is best for the faith and teaching of his parish (a goal which should be shared by all involved here).

 

[Isca]

No hymnals in my Italian parish, because no hymns are ever sung. Sometimes there’s a music group (all young women), sometimes there’s no music at all. Sometimes the priest plays a tape.

 

[pianistclare]

I like it when people post up the norms in other countries. It’s helpful to understand that while the Mass is universal, practices tend to not be.

If I used a tape at Mass my American pastor would throttle me, LOL

 

[Isca]

I like it when people post up the norms in other countries. It’s helpful to understand that while the Mass is universal, practices tend to not be.

If I used a tape at Mass my American pastor would throttle me, LOL

I love attending Mass in two different countries, I’ve learned a lot.

I actually went to a different Italian parish yesterday, and they did have a couple of hymns (which was interesting). There were some small hymnals, but the hymn numbers weren’t displayed anywhere in the church. I listened hard to the first lines, checked the index at the back and picked them up during the second verse.

There was no accompanying music though. The tunes were also very different to anything I’ve ever heard before. We live and learn in our universal Catholic Church, that’s for sure!

 

[Phemie]

I like it when people post up the norms in other countries. It’s helpful to understand that while the Mass is universal, practices tend to not be.

If I used a tape at Mass my American pastor would throttle me, LOL

He would have had a stroke at the Easter Vigil here: A recording of the Exsultet! was played because Father can’t sing. The person who normally sings it still hasn’t bothered to learn the 7 year old version, because, you know, “I’m sure God doesn’t care.” From 2012-16 she chanted the old one and last year and this we’ve had the recorded version.

 

[pianistclare]

Yikes.
I go to great pains to find a fabulous tenor for this.

Also, it’s interesting to note that our 800 yr old parish in Ireland has no hymnals because tourists repeatedly stole them as “souvenirs”. The parish simply gave up.

Our parish has hymnals and missalettes in the pews. When we have b-lingual Holy Day Masses I print up worship aids. .

 

[Phemie]

To be fair, it would probably be easier for you to do that for us. We’re not exactly in a place where I can find someone to “Lend me a Tenor” .

I shook my head though when this gal said that we had the CD and it was lovely.

 

[pianistclare]

Ours flew in from D.C.