Sequence for Pentecost: Recited or Sung

[Gertabelle]

**“So much is lost when this sequence is not sung in its original Latin.” **

Except, nothing was lost from the beautiful poetry of David, when the Psalms are sung, read, or chanted in a language other than the original Hebrew.

Maybe. Maybe not.

The point here is the rhyme scheme, meter, and syntax. The Latin has a very organic rhythm to it, whereas the usual English translation feels clunky and awkward in places. The English words, too, for that matter lack the grace and ease of expression that the Latin has.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the English version of the chant – it captures the meaning of the Latin and uses the beautiful original melody.

But just as an English translation of an Italian opera is missing much of the original cadence and unity of language and melody, so singing the Latin chant in a language other than Latin removes some of that same beauty and unity.

As for the Psalms, unless one has examined the poetic structure of the original Hebrew, it would be hard to say what we’re missing by reading a translation. You can’t know what literary elements you’re missing unless you know what is contained in the original

Gertie

 

[Neofight]

Maybe. Maybe not.

The point here is the rhyme scheme, meter, and syntax. The Latin has a very organic rhythm to it, whereas the usual English translation feels clunky and awkward in places. The English words, too, for that matter lack the grace and ease of expression that the Latin has.

But just as an English translation of an Italian opera is missing much of the original cadence and unity of language and melody, so singing the Latin chant in a language other than Latin removes some of that same beauty and unity.

Gertie

Two points:

1. No heartfelt glorification of God is “clunky and awkward” nor can any words used in His glorification, if heartfelt, be lacking “grace and ease of expression”.
2. The Sacred Liturgy cannot be compared to an opera. Opera was entertainment for the masses, liturgy is glorification of God.

Aesthetics may be a blessing to the human senses, but, just my thoughts are just He does not favor animal sacrifice over humble heart and contrite spirit, he does not favor any particular words or sounds of glorification, but would rather they be offered from the heart.

 

[Gertabelle]

Two points:

1. No heartfelt glorification of God is “clunky and awkward” nor can any words used in His glorification, if heartfelt, be lacking “grace and ease of expression”.
2. The Sacred Liturgy cannot be compared to an opera. Opera was entertainment for the masses, liturgy is glorification of God.

Aesthetics may be a blessing to the human senses, but, just my thoughts are just He does not favor animal sacrifice over humble heart and contrite spirit, he does not favor any particular words or sounds of glorification, but would rather they be offered from the heart.

Well, we can certainly agree that the point is the glorification of God!

But the original comment was about the poetic structure. And the comment that something is lost was with regard to literary devices. It was not about the intent of the heart.

And just because I am opening my heart to God, that doesn’t mean that I turn off my God-given brain and intellectual powers. There can be a beauty in well-crafted words that leads the heart and mind to Our Lord in prayer. Likewise, there can be a clumsiness in words that actually distracts from prayer.

And you are correct that Our Lord sees a humble, contrite heart over the clunkiness or grace of the words. But from my side of things, as a writer-composer-church musician, I cannot accept that all words are equal in lifting the human spirit to God, in directing the mind and heart to the altar instead of the hymnal or choir loft.

Words matter – or we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place. God created us with the language centers in our brains that make words matter. He doesn’t need lofty language structures. But maybe we do…

“Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
and sorry I could not travel both
and be one traveler, long I stood…”

Words matter. Cadence matters. Syntax matters. For us, not for God.

Gertie

 

[Elizium23]

Aesthetics may be a blessing to the human senses, but, just my thoughts are just He does not favor animal sacrifice over humble heart and contrite spirit, he does not favor any particular words or sounds of glorification, but would rather they be offered from the heart.

Lol u tink dat werdz rnt mprnt 2 prayz teh Ceiling Cat.

Y not reed teh LOLcat Bible insted?

 

[Phemie]

Not sure about Sunday but at the Saturday evening Mass it was omitted. Yeah, I know…

 

[Elizium23]

Not sure about Sunday but at the Saturday evening Mass it was omitted. Yeah, I know…

[edited] Saturday, was a vigil liturgy with its own propers. I am pretty sure the Sequence is only attached to “Mass During the Day”.

 

[Phemie]

[edited] Saturday, was a vigil liturgy with its own propers. I am pretty sure the Sequence is only attached to “Mass During the Day”.

We didn’t celebrate the Vigil of Pentecost, which is optional, we celebrated Pentecost.

The only Vigil we ever celebrate is the Easter Vigil.

 

[27lw]

Please don’t feel that way.

Whether sung, chanted, spoken, or read, the glorification of God and the fulfillment of Christ’s promise to send the advocate to be with us for all time should be joyful, not lamented…ever!

Peace and all Good!

Okay - - I perhaps phrased it badly. That’s good that it was not skipped entirely as seems to be the case in some parishes. I just don’t understand why we didn’t sing it, since we had an organist / pianist, and our full adult choir. I think it is at the direction of our priest, to make the liturgy…more “accessible”?

 

[UpUpAndAway]

Veni Sancte Spiritus sung in a mix of French and Latin on both Saturday and Sunday.

In the past we have chanted it entirely in Latin but some people complained. Then we sang it entirely in French and other people complained The current approach seems to keep the objections to a dull roar.

 

[OraLabora]

Veni Sancte Spiritus sung in a mix of French and Latin on both Saturday and Sunday.

In the past we have chanted it entirely in Latin but some people complained. Then we sang it entirely in French and other people complained The current approach seems to keep the objections to a dull roar.

You can please some of the people, some of the time…

We had the same problem at the World Oblate Congresses in Rome (2005, 2009 and 2013). In 2005 and 2009, the liturgies (LOTH and Mass) were in different major languages every day. Many people complained that they didn’t understand English/French/German/Italian/Spanish.

So for 2013 we decided to stick with Latin.

About the same number of people complained that they couldn’t understand Latin, as the combination of those who said couldn’t understand English/French/German/Italian/Spanish.

 

[turtle18]

It was recited. I don’t know why it wasn’t sung. You know, because Mass might have been 63 minutes then instead of 58. And we all know that there are much better uses of those five minutes than praising the Lord, right?

Pentecost is supposed to be a major feast day but you just wouldn’t know it by some of the liturgical celebrations I’ve gone to.

 

[Neofight]

Pentecost is supposed to be a major feast day but you just wouldn’t know it by some of the liturgical celebrations I’ve gone to.

There is more to faith than being lost in the liturgy…How we live between liturgical celebrations is as important as the liturgy itself.

So, a one hour observation of the displays of faith made by our brothers and sisters at Mass cannot paint an accurate picture of the depth of their faith.

There is more to salvation than participation in the liturgy.

Peace and all good!

 

[27lw]

There is more to faith than being lost in the liturgy…How we live between liturgical celebrations is as important as the liturgy itself.

So, a one hour observation of the displays of faith** made by our brothers and sisters **at Mass cannot paint an accurate picture of the depth of their faith.

There is more to salvation than participation in the liturgy.

Peace and all good!

The problem isn’t the display of faith made by our brothers and sisters, it’s the celebration of the faith by our spiritual fathers. And liturgy committees or music directors. The people are being deprived of parts of the liturgy that the Church is supposed to provide.

 

[Neofight]

The The people are being deprived of parts of the liturgy that the Church is supposed to provide.

“People”? Which people?

Certainly not all people, because I for one am not feeling deprived of good liturgy.

Might you mean that YOU feel deprived of a liturgical celebration that YOU prefer and YOU feel should be provided by the Church to YOU?

There is nothing wrong with that. But when your personal preferences aren’t being fulfilled to your tastes and expectations, that does not mean the same is true for “people” in general.

Peace and all good!

 

[Phemie]

“People”? Which people?

Certainly not all people, because I for one am not feeling deprived of good liturgy.

Might you mean that YOU feel deprived of a liturgical celebration that YOU prefer and YOU feel should be provided by the Church to YOU?

There is nothing wrong with that. But when your personal preferences aren’t being fulfilled to your tastes and expectations, that does not mean the same is true for “people” in general.

Peace and all good!

No, I don’t think that’s what’s meant. All people in the parish are being deprived when an element of Mass which is obligatory is omited for any reason.

 

[27lw]

“People”? Which people?

Certainly not all people, because I for one am not feeling deprived of good liturgy.

Might you mean that YOU feel deprived of a liturgical celebration that YOU prefer and YOU feel should be provided by the Church to YOU?

There is nothing wrong with that. But when your personal preferences aren’t being fulfilled to your tastes and expectations, that does not mean the same is true for “people” in general.

Peace and all good!

Not my personal preferences, it’s what the GIRM says.
Some “people” are being deprived of the sequence completely, according to what has been written in this thread.

 

[Neofight]

No, I don’t think that’s what’s meant. All people in the parish are being deprived when an element of Mass which is obligatory is omited for any reason.

Thanks for attempting to explain what 27lw meant, but is often the case, 27lw did a better job of clarifying what you thought you understood…this entire thread was about whether the Sequence was recited or sung, and somehow you thought it was whether the Sequence was omitted or not.

Peace and all good!

 

[Neofight]

Not my personal preferences, it’s what the GIRM says.
Some “people” are being deprived of the sequence completely, according to what has been written in this thread.

Thanks for the clarification. If you were speaking of whether the Sequence (sung or recited, Latin or other language) was absent, then I agree with your assessment.

Peace and all good!

 

[27lw]

Just curious, if the GIRM says the sequence is to be sung, then are the people “missing” something something is the sequence is recited / read instead of being sung? If not, then what is the point of this thread?
I know these will probably be fighting words…

 

[CyrilSebastian]

Thanks for attempting to explain what 27lw meant, but is often the case, 27lw did a better job of clarifying what you thought you understood…this entire thread was about whether the Sequence was recited or sung, and somehow you thought it was whether the Sequence was omitted or not.

Peace and all good!

Neofight, That is correct. The purpose of the thread is to explain which of the Sequences of Pentecost was used. Once that is expressed, then we are learning if the particular Sequence was sung or recited.