Schola in the sanctuary

[Melchior_1]

Hey Melchior, the Dominican priory near me that I sometimes visit has a loft as well. But it was not made for a choir, but for the cloistered nuns who once lived nearby. In this particular situation, the brothers all sing so there isn’t really a need for a choir. The same MIGHT be true for you as well. During mass the ordained brothers should be wearing a stole.

Interesting! The bolded makes sense; we’re a clerical order, so the priests will wear distinctive clothing and be called Father.

Oh my, I had not noticed your byline. Sorry for that. Somewhat more seriously: When I heard the joke years ago, the part about the Fransicans and Jesuits made perfect sense, I remember thinking that someone must have just made something up about the Dominicans to have it round out to three things. To this day, its the only thing I have ever heard about Dominicans having money; of course the same cannot be said about the other two items on the list.

No problem

The joke probably stems from Dominicans taking vows of individual poverty, but NOT collective property. All the knowledge needs to happen somehow, and before the time of computers you need a means to acquire books and the like. Those massive libraries and archives aren’t cheap! And schools cost money to maintain!

So it’s possible it’s a perception issue. Or something, who knows!

 

[sllhouette]

The joke probably stems from Dominicans taking vows of individual poverty, but NOT collective property. All the knowledge needs to happen somehow, and before the time of computers you need a means to acquire books and the like. Those massive libraries and archives aren’t cheap! And schools cost money to maintain!

So it’s possible it’s a perception issue. Or something, who knows!

To be fair, the original charter said that the Dominicans could collectively own NOTHING. They begged for every meal. Apparently this practice only ended with papal involvement.

 

[Melchior_1]

To be fair, the original charter said that the Dominicans could collectively own NOTHING. They begged for every meal. Apparently this practice only ended with papal involvement.

For a roving Order who preaches, this made sense. It’s also why the Pope at the time told Holy Father Dominic to use the Rule of Augustine instead of the one Dominic made; the Rule of Augustine was much more flexible and adaptable to what the needs of the Order was/is.

(WHY AM I DERAILING THIS THREAD AGAIN?!)

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Greetings, joyous Easter people!

I’ve always had my doubts about a liturgist hired at my childhood parish, but he seems somewhat reasonable enough when confronted with authoritative documentation. I’ve moved away recently, but things seem generally the same, e.g., the pastor seems to give him carte blanche liturgically, but that’s another discussion altogether…

Anyway, visiting the parish to spend Triduum with family, after distribution of Holy Communion at both the Good Friday Liturgy and at the Easter Vigil (maybe more, but I’d since gone home), at least some of the choir entered the sanctuary and sang appropriate renaissance motets…two of my favorites, actually! I know this is new because I still communicate regularly with friends at the parish. Of course, these displays were greeted with applause.

Just to give a set up of the church, it is an 80’s architectural masterpiece where the tabernacle is far from the sanctuary, and there is an already-conspicuous choir section sanctuary-left (stage-left!) of the sanctuary.

Besides it tingling my spidey senses, can someone cite specifically anything that bars (or allows!) such a practice? I suspect it could be like the silence of rubrics surrounding stuff like holding hands at the Pater Noster or blessings of those in the Communion line, but in case someone knows something I could use…

I hope everyone had a blessed Triduum otherwise! Alleluia! Alleluia!

AMDG,
-Mike

I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand this issue. At a time, and in a forum, where there are seemingly endless complaints about the proverbial (and semi-mythical) “clown Mass,” various liturgical abuses and irregularities in the celebration of Mass, abuses in the use of EMHC’s, poorly-celebrated Ordinary Form of the Mass, lousy music, music by various offenders ranging from Marty Haugen to the St. Louis Jesuits, poor homilies, ugly vestments, and on and on – many of us would commit major crimes to have a decent choir, let alone one capable of singing “renaissance motets.” So now we’re questioning where “some” of them stand at the end of a liturgy?

 

[kinderbueno]

(WHY AM I DERAILING THIS THREAD AGAIN?!)

I give up, why?

(now back to our regularly scheduled programming )

I would imagine the answer I’m seeking to my question doesn’t necessarily have to specifically single out the schola, but rather, ANY unnecessary personnel in the sanctuary. It’s sometimes difficult to explain that that which disrupts and interrupts the natural rhythm of the Liturgy is harmful and must be removed. I wonder if there was any sense of entitlement that emerged when the choir donned their snazzy new albs for Triduum…

AMDG,
-Mike

 

[sllhouette]

I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand this issue. At a time, and in a forum, where there are seemingly endless complaints about the proverbial (and semi-mythical) “clown Mass,” various liturgical abuses and irregularities in the celebration of Mass, abuses in the use of EMHC’s, poorly-celebrated Ordinary Form of the Mass, lousy music, music by various offenders ranging from Marty Haugen to the St. Louis Jesuits, poor homilies, ugly vestments, and on and on – many of us would commit major crimes to have a decent choir, let alone one capable of singing “renaissance motets.” So now we’re questioning where “some” of them stand at the end of a liturgy?

What is wrong with this? Certainly, we can find many things wrong with it, but the most notable is that the focus of the people is taken off of the liturgy and placed on the performers. You see, we are not questioning where people stand, but rather we are questioning where people’s attention is drawn. Are they drawn to God, or are they drawn to a performance. Further, they are not showing the reverence to the altar that they ought to by performing behind the altar. Indeed, I would argue that having people perform at the alter could very quickly lead to liturgical dance.

 

[kinderbueno]

I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand this issue. At a time, and in a forum, where there are seemingly endless complaints about the proverbial (and semi-mythical) “clown Mass,” various liturgical abuses and irregularities in the celebration of Mass, abuses in the use of EMHC’s, poorly-celebrated Ordinary Form of the Mass, lousy music, music by various offenders ranging from Marty Haugen to the St. Louis Jesuits, poor homilies, ugly vestments, and on and on – many of us would commit major crimes to have a decent choir, let alone one capable of singing “renaissance motets.” So now we’re questioning where “some” of them stand at the end of a liturgy?

First of all, I’m asking an honest question about something that suddenly appeared in the Liturgies at this parish which practice had no precedent there.

Secondly, good liturgical music isn’t license for other liturgical abuses.

Thirdly, it isn’t the end of the Liturgy until “ite missa est”…or in the case of Good Friday, the post-Communion prayer. Outside of the Liturgy, do cartwheels and sing pop music to your heart’s content!

Fourthly, hello!!! This is a forum about Liturgy and Sacraments! I’m not on here that much, but many folks have legitimate beefs IMO. Not saying my beef is any more legitimate…just asking the question. Thought I could go here with a question like that…

AMDG

 

[sllhouette]

I give up, why?

(now back to our regularly scheduled programming )

I would imagine the answer I’m seeking to my question doesn’t necessarily have to specifically single out the schola, but rather, ANY unnecessary personnel in the sanctuary. It’s sometimes difficult to explain that that which disrupts and interrupts the natural rhythm of the Liturgy is harmful and must be removed. I wonder if there was any sense of entitlement that emerged when the choir donned their snazzy new albs for Triduum…

AMDG,
-Mike

If someone is around the alter during mass that does not belong there, they should have to be able to defend how their presence improves the liturgy. Lectors are there to read. Alter servers to perform the mundane tasks. Extraordinary minsters to help distribute communion. Etc… But there is no explanation of how the choir is improving the liturgy by their presence at the altar.

 

[kinderbueno]

OK, it is mentioned in the GIRM (namely #s 294, 295, 312) stating where the schola cantorum should be. Common sense should tell you that since they are not really performing a liturgical function in the sanctuary and they already have a dedicated place in the church not in the sanctuary, besides being strange, it is probably wrong. Receiving applause should tell you where the faithful’s attention went instead of to their own prayer after receiving Holy Communion.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-5.cfm

Cantors belong with the choir if there is one, which choir belongs in the dedicated choir section if there is one. Psalmists, a named and different function altogether (though often carried out by the cantor), can be in the sanctuary at the appropriate time. This schola, as a schola of cantors, then, are not exercising the role of psalmist and therefore do not belong in the sanctuary.

Sound right?

AMDG,
-Mike

 

[sllhouette]

sounds about right.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I think the sanctuaries tend to be fairly empty, compared to what the liturgical books say.

For example, most people would be surprised to learn that the Roman Missal has the reader in the sanctuary from the opening procession:
“195. Upon reaching the altar, the reader makes a profound bow with the others. If he is carrying the Book of the Gospels, he approaches the altar and places the Book of the Gospels upon it. Then the reader takes his own place in the sanctuary with the other ministers.” (from Roman Missal, English translation according to the third typical edition, approved for use in the dioceses of Australia, England and Wales, and Scotland, published by Catholic Truth Society, in 2010, ISBN 9781860827303, page 76.)

Regarding the choir, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) has:
“294. … The faithful and the schola cantorum (choir) shall have a place that facilitates their active participation.footnote 114: Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction, Inter Oecumenicic, 26 September 1964, nos. 97-98 …”

This 1964 document has:
“VIII. PLACE FOR CHOIR AND ORGAN
97. The choir and organ shall occupy a place clearly showing that the singers and the organist form part of the united community of the faithful and allowing them best to fulfill their part in the liturgy.”
(From Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1982, ISBN 0-8146-1281-4, page 110.)

The GIRM has:
“295. The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, the Word of God is proclaimed, and the Priest, the Deacon, and the other ministers exercise their functions.”

So can the choir be included in this? Here is a summary of a section of the GIRM, with the actual headings in quotes.

“III. PARTICULAR MINISTRIES
The Ministry of the Instituted Acolyte and Lector”
98. Instituted acolyte
99. Instituted lector
“Other Functions”
100. Non-instituted altar servers
101. Non-instituted readers
102. Psalmist
103. Choir
104. Cantor or a choir director
105a. sacristan
b. commentator
c. those who take up collections
d. ushers.

So I don’t think there are specific directions on the location of the choir. They are not directed to be in the sanctuary. They are not directed to be out of it. Instead a judgement needs to be made about this, regarding a location that will “facilitate their active participation”.