Exodus Reading for the Great Vigil

[HeyMoe1287]

I attended the Easter Vigil tonight, and for the Exodus reading, a sung version by Rory Cooney was used. It involved a bit of clapping with a sung response at particular intervals from the congregation. I’m not a fan, as I see no problem with simply reading the verse and seeing the beauty in the text itself, and it just seems rather showy and broadway to me. That said, I was also not surprised. My church does these types of things routinely (eg butterflies hung around the sanctuary during Easter to represent… new life? I don’t know.). In any case, has anyone else experienced this? Is it proper/an abuse? Thanks.

 

[PacoG]

Which Exodus reading do you mean?

The Reading from Exodus 14:14–15:1 (The story of the parting of the Red Sea)

Or

The Responsorial Psalm ("Let us sing to the Lord; he has covered himself in glory) from Ex. 15:1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 17-18).

Either way its an abuse.

 

[HeyMoe1287]

Which Exodus reading do you mean?

The Reading from Exodus 14:14–15:1 (The story of the parting of the Red Sea)

Or

The Responsorial Psalm ("Let us sing to the Lord; he has covered himself in glory) from Ex. 15:1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 17-18).

Either way its an abuse.

The former. Is there something specifically you could point to? I’d like to show it to my family. Thanks.

 

[PacoG]

The Lectionary. It’s the only approved text for readings. It is the only approved rendition of the readings.

Also, Exodus 14 is the only required of the Old Testament readings.

 

[PacoG]

Also, if someone will weigh in with the citations, recorded music is not allowed at Mass. Only live music.

 

[HeyMoe1287]

I realize now that I was unclear. It was live music… not a recording. The piece was just written by Rory Cooney. Also, Exodus 14 was read… only, it was read in a sung fashion (namely, in the format of Rory Cooney’s written tune). Does that make sense?

 

[PacoG]

I realize now that I was unclear. It was live music… not a recording. The piece was just written by Rory Cooney. Also, Exodus 14 was read… only, it was read in a sung fashion (namely, in the format of Rory Cooney’s written tune). Does that make sense?

Yes. However, the only approved format for that reading is the one in the Lectionary. If it is sung/chanted, it has to be an exact rendition of the text in the Lectionary.

 

[HeyMoe1287]

Yes. However, the only approved format for that reading is the one in the Lectionary. If it is sung/chanted, it has to be an exact rendition of the text in the Lectionary.

I’m sure that’s right… could you direct me to where it is officially stated?

As a side, the reading itself was the exact rendition, only, there were sung congregational responses in between every set of few verses or so. So in this case, I would assume that the said responses are what push it into the “abuse” category, no? I realize I’m playing devil’s advocate here.

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m sure that’s right… could you direct me to where it is officially stated?

As a side, the reading itself was the exact rendition, only, there were sung congregational responses in between every set of few verses or so. So in this case, I would assume that the said responses are what push it into the “abuse” category, no? I realize I’m playing devil’s advocate here.

I’ve heard “musical” versions of some Vigil OT readings done. Personally I’m not a big fan. [Edited]

Alleluia.

 

[HeyMoe1287]

I’ve heard “musical” versions of some Vigil OT readings done. Personally I’m not a big fan. But, I am even less a fan of worrying too much about legalisms. If the reading was done, whether read/sung/proclaimed/whatever, is it really worthwhile to follow up outside our own parish regarding legalisms? Why are we even questioning things like “abuse” in a situation like this? Shouldn’t “abuse” be reserved for much more egregious matters?

Alleluia.

IMO, an abuse on any level is still exactly that, an abuse. If we start ignoring the “unimportant ‘legalisms,’” before we know it, the “much more egregious matters” begin to be ignored as well. In other words, yes, it is worthwhile.

 

[diggerdomer]

IMO, an abuse on any level is still exactly that, an abuse. If we start ignoring the “unimportant ‘legalisms,’” before we know it, the “much more egregious matters” begin to be ignored as well. In other words, yes, it is worthwhile.

Fine. Whatever. If your priority in worship is to police abuse, good for you. That’s certainly important. Personally I’m more concerned about worshiping with the Church, giving glory to God and the sanctification of the world.

If someone reads the NAB version or the NRSV version for a given reading, I’m really not going to lose sleep over it. Frankly, I doubt God does either.

Alleluia.

 

[HeyMoe1287]

Personally I’m more concerned about worshiping with the Church, giving glory to God and the sanctification of the world.

I as well, and the best way to **do **so is in the manner that the Church has deemed appropriate, through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, the teaching of Her Groom, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Anything separate from, additional to, or in place of this is simply unnecessary and should be pointed out.

 

[diggerdomer]

I as well, and the best way to **do **so is in the manner that the Church has deemed appropriate, through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, the teaching of Her Groom, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Anything separate from, additional to, or in place of this is simply unnecessary and should be pointed out.

Well I hope you never sneeze during Mass, because there’s nothing in the Church liturgy, law, rubrics, or anything else that says it’s appropriate to sneeze during Mass.

Sneezing is obviously unnecessary to Catholic worship. I assume you point this out as well.

Alleluia. And God bless us all.

 

[HeyMoe1287]

Well I hope you never sneeze during Mass, because there’s nothing in the Church liturgy, law, rubrics, or anything else that says it’s appropriate to sneeze during Mass.

There’s also nothing that deems it inappropriate. Do you know why? Because it’s sneezing. It’s also not at all what I’m talking about, and I think you know that. But, if your argument really is that liturgical abuses are as insignificant as sneezing, then I think you should start taking the Mass a bit more seriously.

 

[diggerdomer]

There’s also nothing that deems it inappropriate. Do you know why? Because it’s sneezing. It’s also not at all what I’m talking about, and I think you know that. But, if your argument really is that liturgical abuses are as insignificant as sneezing, then I think you should start taking the Mass a bit more seriously.

No I’m just saying that some things people call “abuses” are about as significant as sneezing. It’s a matter or priority, focus, and scrupulosity. We all fall on different ends of those spectrums (or spectra). I don’t care if the priest adds “good morning” to the Introductory Rites. Others would scream that it’s not in the rubrics.

If the readings are being read/proclaimed/sung, by a legitimate translation, I can live with that.

Alleluia.

 

[HeyMoe1287]

No I’m just saying that some things people call “abuses” are about as significant as sneezing.

Right… that’s what I*** said*** you said.

It’s a matter or priority, focus, and scrupulosity.

I agree, it*** is*** a matter of priority, focus, and scrupulosity, and rightly so. Indeed, these are matters that should not be taken without priority, focus, and scrupulosity, for we are dealing with the Mass, the most important gift and sacrament known to man.

We all fall on different ends of those spectrums (or spectra).

If what you mean by this is that on one end of the spectrum, there are those who allow any abuse whatsoever, and on the other end there are “abuse police,” with the fair-minded-level-headed Catholics falling somewhere in between, I would disagree. The Church simply doesn’t allow for such a stretch.

I don’t care if the priest adds “good morning” to the Introductory Rites.

Saying “good morning” is not an addition to the Introductory Rites. It’s just saying “good morning.” Contrast that with adding sung responses during the Exodus reading, or breaking the bread at the wrong time, or clapping inappropriately, etc, and you’ll have a different picture emerge.

We’ll talk more tomorrow, I’m sure. Goodnight and Happy Easter!

 

[jilly4ski]

At the Easter Vigil I atteneded the Exodus reading was read until the last 2 lines, which is the song the Isralites sang when they saw the Egyptians lying dead on the shore. The cantor started singing the “responsorial pslam” (I am not sure, because it was not the one called for in the missal.) So the reader never said “The word of the Lord” and congregation never said “Thanks be to God”
So not quite the same, but still in the interersting category.

Pax

 

[Phemie]

At the Easter Vigil I atteneded the Exodus reading was read until the last 2 lines, which is the song the Isralites sang when they saw the Egyptians lying dead on the shore. The cantor started singing the “responsorial pslam” (I am not sure, because it was not the one called for in the missal.) So the reader never said “The word of the Lord” and congregation never said “Thanks be to God”
So not quite the same, but still in the interersting category.

Pax

It’s actually not a Psalm but a Canticle, a segment of the Bible put to song, and it’s supposed to be started as part of the reading, so the cantor did it exactly as prescribed.

 

[japhy]

It involved a bit of clapping with a sung response at particular intervals from the congregation.

The congregation’s participation in the readings of Scripture is to listen attentively, not to respond or clap or holler or dance or sing. While the readings may be sung (and in the Roman Rite, that really means chanted) there is no allowance for “audience participation” like you would find at a concert or other entertainment venue. (Because that’s not what the Mass is.)

At the Easter Vigil I attended the Exodus reading was read until the last 2 lines, which is the song the Israelites sang when they saw the Egyptians lying dead on the shore. The cantor started singing the “responsorial psalm” (I am not sure, because it was not the one called for in the missal.) So the reader never said “The word of the Lord” and congregation never said “Thanks be to God”.

The Responsorial Psalm is not part of the readings, it is a response to them. Thus, the reading should be proclaimed in its entirety and concluded with “The Word of the Lord.” / “Thanks be to God.” A suitable (albeit brief) silence should follow before the Psalm. And I am really irritated when the Responsorial Psalm selected by Holy Mother Church is supplanted by some liturgist’s or musical director’s personal preferences. It does not make sense to replace the responsorial “psalm” (since it’s not really a psalm, it’s Exodus 15) with some other response! Exodus 15 IS THE SONG that was sung after the miracle of the Crossing of the Red Sea. Thus, it should be our response to hearing about that miracle.