MERGED: If I don't sing, have I failed to participate in the Mass?/Singing at Mass

[pnewton]

Truth, beauty, goodness: Love. There is no excuse, given the Church’s patrimony, for bad music at Mass.

I know the recording in that link. You say there is no excuse, but we are not allowed to play recordings at Mass, or YouTube. Not all parishes have the access to that level of talent. Not all agree one what is “bad” music.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

The Mass of the Angels is ridiculously easy to sing. It doesn’t take a whole lot of talent.

In regard to parish’s not having talent to do much, there are some solutions for that, but it would take some effort (and time). Effort is something I’ve seen severely lacking in some places.

 

[pnewton]

The Mass of the Angels is ridiculously easy to sing. It doesn’t take a whole lot of talent.

Let me just say I am in serious disagreement with that opinion. The Kyrie has been attempted and butchered several times. The Gloria I recognized from Jubilate Dei and took months to learn. We still have less than 20% of the parish that can do it. On the other hand, I recognize I am speaking from a parish with virtual no musically trained people. We have a couple of very talented mariachi people, but that is about it as far as professional musicians.

My answer is to always invite the one who can do a better job to step in.

 

[ProVobis]

Let me just say I am in serious disagreement with that opinion. The Kyrie has been attempted and butchered several times. The Gloria I recognized from Jubilate Dei and took months to learn. We still have less than 20% of the parish that can do it. On the other hand, I recognize I am speaking from a parish with virtual no musically trained people. We have a couple of very talented mariachi people, but that is about it as far as professional musicians.

My answer is to always invite the one who can do a better job to step in.

Yes, but once learned, one should be able to sing it at every parish, which is what Jubilite Deo was intended for. Portability.

Good start, if nothing else.

 

[Lormar]

Bishop Sample, soon to be of the Diocese of Portland Oregon, in his directives on sacred music for his diocese, said this regarding congregational singing:

So again, no, you are NOT required to sing. Participation does not ALWAYS have to be done in an exterior manner.

If anyone is interested in reading the full article by Bishop Sample, I have a thread on that topic: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10459791#post10459791

Good to know this!

 

[Joan_M]

The only way to learn to sing is to sing. **You need to, at least, be able to carry a tune. There are plenty of people who simply cannot sing. **But if you tell people they can’t sing, or if you tell them not to sing, then they’ll never try again - and they’ll never experience the joy that comes from singing praise to God. **You do not need to sing to give praise to God. **

So, even if you think your neighbor can’t sing very well, leave him alone and let him sing. Don’t tell him how awful he is **(I have never told anyone that they sound awful - most people who cannot sing know that they sound awful. **- let him enjoy singing to God his Creator. God hears beautiful music when it’s sung with joy, even if it’s off-key - **Really? You know that, how? I believe that we should develop our talents. However, having a voice that cannot sing is not a talent to be developed. and that’s who we’re singing for, right? Not for human praise. Correct, we are not singing for human praise. We are singing for God. But, I do not believe that God hears beautiful music when someone’s singing sounds like a hoarse crow, or a yowling cat! **And over time, he will improve. **Most unlikely! People who improve in their singing must first actually have a singing voice. Those who are tone deaf (and there are many of them) will never be able to learn to sing. ** Or you’ll get used to him. And it won’t matter any more. As someone who has an acute ear for off notes, no, I won’t get used to him (or her). It will always matter, because it causes actual pain.

I’m not saying that people who can’t sing should be invited to join the Choir - that’s a whole different thing. But someone singing from his pew should not be discouraged from doing so. **I had the painful experience, once, of sitting through vespers that were being beautifully chanted by monks. However, one of the lay congregation attending vespers insisted on “chanting” in a very loud voice that sounded horrible. He totally spoiled the monks’ chanting. It was absolutely painful. Silence on that man’s part would certainly have been a virtue! **

 

[Edmundus1581]

Good to know this!

When the quote from Bishop Sample was first posted I thought the out-of-context usage and highlighting was so obvious that it didn’t need a reply.

1. Whatever Bishop Sample rules for his diocese has no impact on other dioceses. The rule for other dioceses is the GIRM, and any specific instructions from the Bishop.
2. Bishop Sample did not say that one participates by being silent when hymns are being sung by the congregation. The highlighted words obviously apply to hymns and music which is being performed without the congregation. If you read the whole paragraph and not just the highlights it even says this! The GIRM and musical tradition provides for such, and they also provide for congregational singing. These are two different cases, requiring different participation from the laity. If the choir is singing a Palestrina Kyrie then we participate by listening. If the choir is leading a singable “Lord Have Mercy” then we participate by singing. Most hymns and propers at parish Masses are intended for the congregation, and obviously so.

**They are consequently to avoid any appearance of singularity or division, keeping in mind that they have only one Father in heaven and that hence are all brothers or sisters one to the other.

1. Moreover, they are to form one body, whether in hearing the Word of God, or in taking part in the prayers and in the singing, or above all by the common offering of the Sacrifice and by participating together at the Lord’s table. This unity is beautifully apparent from the gestures and bodily postures observed together by the faithful.**

 

[frjohnmaryt]

Officially I don’t have the Latin version of the text but the English version. The GIRM has a different version, but the version I posted is what I know because it is written on the cover page of the famous hymn book of the Seminary where I attended for my ministry formation. The hymn book published in 1991. I still have the copy with me. The name of the seminary is the Pacific Regional Seminary in Fiji. The seminary has been using that book for many years and I heard the seminarians are still using it.

In the text, St Augustine say “Singing is for one who loves” but not “The one who sings pray twice.” “One who sings well prays twice” is the ancient proverb but also NOT St Augustine. Whoever put these words “The one who sings prays twice” on that hymn book presumably must have picked it up somewhere in a book or just an idea to rephrase or combine St Augustine words “Singing is for one who love” and the ancient proverb “One who sings well prays twice.”

However, the phrase “The one who sings prays twice” if it is not originally St Augustine’s it must be corrected as I always believe in originality and truth. If it is really St Augustine’s words it must be kept as it is. I think we need the help of a Catholic professor who has studied the life and writings of St Augustine for the sake of its originality for the sake of scholarship in “original quote.”

Anyway thanks for the correction and discussion on the matter. What is important is singing is a joyful expression of love to God. :harp:

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

1. Whatever Bishop Sample rules for his diocese has no impact on other dioceses. The rule for other dioceses is the GIRM, and any specific instructions from the Bishop.

It’s true that he has no jurisdiction over other dioceses other than his own, however it’s quite possible that his writing on the subject will influence the others. It should serve as an example to other dioceses as many of them suffer from poor music, to say the least. I can only hope that some such instruction will come out in my diocese. What Bishop Sample did is a good example of a bishop following GIRM. So while his personal directives (which I didn’t actually post except for a tiny excerpt) are for only his diocese, any diocese which is also following GIRM should end up with something similar. Regardless, I posted his writing on the subject because it should be a good read for all of us. Or are you denying that?

1. Bishop Sample did not say that one participates by being silent when hymns are being sung by the congregation. The highlighted words obviously apply to hymns and music which is being performed without the congregation. If you read the whole paragraph and not just the highlights it even says this! The GIRM and musical tradition provides for such, and they also provide for congregational singing. These are two different cases, requiring different participation from the laity. If the choir is singing a Palestrina Kyrie then we participate by listening. If the choir is leading a singable “Lord Have Mercy” then we participate by singing. Most hymns and propers at parish Masses are intended for the congregation, and obviously so.

In your quote of GIRM, yes, it does mention that the faithful should sing. However, anyone should be aware that this isn’t 100% possible, nor should we twist people’s arms behind their backs just to maintain uniformity. Keep in mind that a person NOT singing isn’t being disruptive at all, nor will people notice. It’s not quite the same as someone who may stand in the front pew during the entire Mass and become a distraction. However, in keeping with the uniformity of posture, I’ll present another idea…

If uniformity is to be so strictly enforced that people are told they are not participating in the Mass if they DON’T have that exact posture or they aren’t singing, or whatever, then cough why isn’t one method of receiving Communion enforced? Why aren’t we all forced to receive Communion on the tongue (or in the hand) or via both species (or only one). Why do we have a choice there? I don’t see the same crowd telling people they aren’t participating in Mass because 90% of people receive Communion one way and 10% break uniformity by receiving the other way. And really, enforcing one method of receiving Communion would actually be considerably easier to do than forcing everyone to sing. Why no huge push here?

Another example is the argument of chant vs. non-chant. GIRM clearly states that chant takes pride of place for music in the liturgy. I often hear people say that most churches don’t do it because people don’t have the ability, or because it’s not practical. People actually use one paragraph of GIRM (everyone should sing) as a reason to disregard another one (chant should have priority)!!! Okay, so chant isn’t “practical” in some views. But yet so many people think that trying to force EVERYONE to sing is practical?! If anyone is being honest with himself, he has to admit that it is NOT practical. Actually, doing Gregorian chant is easier to accomplish than getting everyone to sing. The music directors and pastors have control of the former, but hardly any over the latter.

So, by all means, keep trying to force this on people under threat of “not participating,” but if you’re going to do that, I expect that you’ll also give 110% effort into making chant the most common form of music heard at Mass.

 

[jmcrae]

You need to, at least, be able to carry a tune. There are plenty of people who simply cannot sing.

This is a myth. Everyone is born with the ability to sing. It is not a special talent endowed upon only a few. With practice, everyone can learn to sing.

But, I do not believe that God hears beautiful music when someone’s singing sounds like a hoarse crow, or a yowling cat!

In all honesty, I’ve never heard anyone whose natural singing voice sounded that bad. I have heard people who sounded like that when they were going off-key on purpose, either for a joke or to get out of singing lessons, or else when trying to sing outside of their range. But never when someone is just singing in a natural way.

I had the painful experience, once, of sitting through vespers that were being beautifully chanted by monks. However, one of the lay congregation attending vespers insisted on “chanting” in a very loud voice that sounded horrible. He totally spoiled the monks’ chanting. It was absolutely painful. Silence on that man’s part would certainly have been a virtue!

And I have not said anywhere that people should sing along with the professional performers at a concert event, or overpower them with their voices. Sunday morning worship is not a concert event.

 

[pnewton]

This is a myth. Everyone is born with the ability to sing. It is not a special talent endowed upon only a few. With practice, everyone can learn to sing. .

Not everyone. Tonight I visited a man in a wheelchair who was waiting for his ride back to the nursing home. He could hardly speak. I remember this man through the years always had a great love for music and zest for singing in Mass. Now, through age, part of his suffering is that thi is taken away from him.

When I read here about the people who do not sing because they just aren’t comfortable with their ability, I wonder if they truly appreciate the opportunity that they pass.

 

[pnewton]

It’s true that he has no jurisdiction over other dioceses other than his own, however it’s quite possible that his writing on the subject will influence the others.

Perhaps. I didn’t see anything really groundbreaking in his letter, though he seems to be intent on tightening things up. Leaders each have their own methods of leading and I have to respect this effort he is making. However, I find it ironic that everytime I bring up Sing to the Lord, the only response I get is the lack of authority that the letter has, even though it is written by a committee of bishops on on behalf of them all.

 

[Edmundus1581]

So, by all means, keep trying to force this on people under threat of “not participating,” but if you’re going to do that, I expect that you’ll also give 110% effort into making chant the most common form of music heard at Mass.

The only reason I posted in this thread was that the OP was given wrong information on the Church’s position on his/her question. I am not trying to force anyone to do anything, except to resist people who say that silence during the congregational singing is an approved liturgical option.

 

[Sarabande]

This is a myth. Everyone is born with the ability to sing. It is not a special talent endowed upon only a few. With practice, everyone can learn to sing.

In all honesty, I’ve never heard anyone whose natural singing voice sounded that bad. I have heard people who sounded like that when they were going off-key on purpose, either for a joke or to get out of singing lessons, or else when trying to sing outside of their range. But never when someone is just singing in a natural way.

I believe that most people can better learn how to sing in tune and can learn how to sing better. Some have nicer voices than others, but as long as they can sing in tune, that’s half the battle of people just being able to sing. Many non-trained and semi-trained singers can sometimes have trouble with relative pitch because they are not really hearing the notes internally. THAT can be taught, though. I remember having problems in the early years of my training where I was trying to “create” the sound rather than let it happen internally and naturally. It isn’t uncommon with new training singers and even people who have never been trained and are trying to create a sound from what they hear on the radio. When singers trust their bodies and what they hear internally, everything comes out naturally and easily. But sometimes that has to be retaught.

It can sometimes be unnerving hearing people who have trouble with pitch or poor or non-existent techniques, but my entire life and expertise is surrounded with music, so I know that I hear and see nuances and problems most untrained ears or eyes won’t pick up. And that is something I make myself aware of when I hear anyone. I won’t judge a untrained singer with the same critical eye or ear as a trained one. I look at their voice for what it is and the potential it can have. Anyway, that is neither here nor there in regards to the OP.

There are also people who are truly tone deaf. They sing AND, I should add, speak monotone. No amount of teaching can help them with that as they have no sense of relative pitch. Most people have relative pitch, which can be improved and perfected and some have perfect pitch, which can be a blessing and a curse at the same time. So tone-deaf individuals are not common, but they are out there.

And I have not said anywhere that people should sing along with the professional performers at a concert event, or overpower them with their voices. Sunday morning worship is not a concert event.

Some churches have professional and volunteer choirs where they sing motets and other liturgical music for mass meant only for the choir. At those times, the congregation is supposed to actively participate by listening and meditating. When you hear someone in the congregation trying to sing a Palestrina “Kyrie” during the mass, it actually breaks the prayer because he/she is the only one doing it whereas everyone is supposed to be praying along to the music and words. The experience that Joan was relating was not a concert event, but a vespers where it was not expected for the congregation to sing since the monk choir was supposed to be doing the music, unless it was pointed out beforehand that the congregation was supposed to join along.

 

[Georgia]

We had a pastor who made a point of saying that singing was mandatory. He told the congregation that anyone who did not sing was not participating. His opinion seems to be very much in the minority, but I sometimes see his point. As more people sing, the Mass seems to reach deeper into the soul.

I recently visited a parish in another state. The parish was very small with fewer than forty people at Mass at a tiny church. There were no musicians. Every person sang. I cannot tell you how moving that was, all those voices united in praise. I hope to get back there.

 

[Pat_the_elder]

When I was younger I would never sing at mass - or anywhere else for that matter. I was always the guy at primary school (aged 5 to 11) that was told to mime. The reason was that I sang far too low for anyone else at that age - (even now I can make Lee Marvin sound like a castrato). With age came confidence however and now with practice I can sing fairly well as a bass/ baritone and sing regularly in the church choir. Yea, so now I do feel as if I’m at last fully participating at mass

 

[superamazingman]

Perhaps. I didn’t see anything really groundbreaking in his letter, though he seems to be intent on tightening things up. Leaders each have their own methods of leading and I have to respect this effort he is making. However, I find it ironic that everytime I bring up Sing to the Lord, the only response I get is the lack of authority that the letter has, even though it is written by a committee of bishops on on behalf of them all.

That’s the problem with the USCCB: It doesn’t act on behalf of all the bishops. That’s the dirty little secret. If it did, it would completely strip a bishop of his authority, because the majority opinion of the rest of the USCCB bishops would stand to rule in his diocese.

the only time they can do that is if their actions are approved by rome, which conveniently, STTL was not when they first wrote it.

However, don’t forget that even despite it’s lack of authority, Rome STILL had to intervene (just as I said it would when it first came out) to fix some of the document’s parts that are in direct opposition to the rubrics in the roman missal, such as troping the agnus dei.

This letter, on the other hand, is a bishop exercising his direct authority in his diocese, going with the spirit (and letter!) of the liturgy, not against it.

 

[ProVobis]

In the text, St Augustine say “Singing is for one who loves” but not “The one who sings pray twice.” “One who sings well prays twice” is the ancient proverb but also NOT St Augustine. Whoever put these words “The one who sings prays twice” on that hymn book presumably must have picked it up somewhere in a book or just an idea to rephrase or combine St Augustine words “Singing is for one who love” and the ancient proverb “One who sings well prays twice.”

However, the phrase “The one who sings prays twice” if it is not originally St Augustine’s it must be corrected as I always believe in originality and truth. If it is really St Augustine’s words it must be kept as it is. I think we need the help of a Catholic professor who has studied the life and writings of St Augustine for the sake of its originality for the sake of scholarship in “original quote.”

Fr, you may very well be right and you make a valid point. However, it doesn’t change the basic principle behind the statement, regardless of who said it or if it was written at all by some ancient author. I don’t think every paragraph in the GIRM/GRIM must have ancient justification. Just my opinion.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

That’s the problem with the USCCB: It doesn’t act on behalf of all the bishops. That’s the dirty little secret. If it did, it would completely strip a bishop of his authority, because the majority opinion of the rest of the USCCB bishops would stand to rule in his diocese.

the only time they can do that is if their actions are approved by rome, which conveniently, STTL was not when they first wrote it.

However, don’t forget that even despite it’s lack of authority, Rome STILL had to intervene (just as I said it would when it first came out) to fix some of the document’s parts that are in direct opposition to the rubrics in the roman missal, such as troping the agnus dei.

This letter, on the other hand, is a bishop exercising his direct authority in his diocese, going with the spirit (and letter!) of the liturgy, not against it.

Thanks for the saying that. I was going to come back and post pretty much the same thing but hadn’t gotten around to it.

 

[frjohnmaryt]

Fr, you may very well be right and you make a valid point. However, it doesn’t change the basic principle behind the statement, regardless of who said it or if it was written at all by some ancient author. I don’t think every paragraph in the GIRM/GRIM must have ancient justification. Just my opinion.

The basic principle changes when the quote is in question in its originality as some may twist that to an ancient author which is not true according to the GIRM. The emphasis is singing during Mass which is very important as an expression of love for God. No one can change that truth but must be encourage.:harp::tsktsk: