Should the Gloria and Sanctus always be sung rather than recited?

[Elizium23]

What is the problem with your so called “participation by listening”? John Paul II said we need it:

Active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed,** it demands it.** Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy.

Sure, we can listen to the Psalm verses being sung by a cantor, or if a choir is assigned to perform the Gloria for us. But whether the parts are for the people to speak or sing, we are bound to respond in a loud voice by obedience and liturgical law. Can you imagine if a church full of the faithful suddenly decided they didn’t want to say “And with your spirit” at all? As a choir member, I feel burned and spurned when the assembly does not sing along with a hymn or antiphon. But this is usually an indication of unfamiliarity or less often, disgust with the selection. At any rate, it is simple to detect problems with the music by the level of assembly participation. We in the choir, as ministers of the Word, are bound by our duty to lead the assembly in singing. My own parish and many like it have very little “performance” type singing of cantor or choir only. We furnish song sheets, and where possible, we give you the notation too, so you may sing along, and it is not optional.

We are called to “full, conscious and active” participation in the liturgy. Someone listening to a hymn or chant which is assigned to the assembly is not fully participating. You are not a stranger or silent spectator here, you are a participant in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

For Pete’s sake, in my visiting parish we have an ASL group at the front, and they are clearly enthusiastic participants in the liturgy. Their leader signs the Mass to them and they sign back all the responses. If an utterly Deaf person can participate with her hands then you can do it with your voice, however feeble it may be.

What’s more, one of my favorite Cardinals is +Daniel DiNardo of Galveston Houston: “DiNardo wears hearing aids because calcium deposits in his ears have impaired his hearing. Despite his hearing difficulties, he still prefers to sing or chant parts of the Mass.” I highly recommend that you listen to him sing sometime, it is quite magnificent.

 

[dshix]

Sure, we can listen to the Psalm verses being sung by a cantor, or if a choir is assigned to perform the Gloria for us. But whether the parts are for the people to speak or sing, we are bound to respond in a loud voice by obedience and liturgical law. Can you imagine if a church full of the faithful suddenly decided they didn’t want to say “And with your spirit” at all? As a choir member, I feel burned and spurned when the assembly does not sing along with a hymn or antiphon. But this is usually an indication of unfamiliarity or less often, disgust with the selection. At any rate, it is simple to detect problems with the music by the level of assembly participation. We in the choir, as ministers of the Word, are bound by our duty to lead the assembly in singing. My own parish and many like it have very little “performance” type singing of cantor or choir only. We furnish song sheets, and where possible, we give you the notation too, so you may sing along, and it is not optional.

We are called to “full, conscious and active” participation in the liturgy. Someone listening to a hymn or chant which is assigned to the assembly is not fully participating. You are not a stranger or silent spectator here, you are a participant in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

For Pete’s sake, in my visiting parish we have an ASL group at the front, and they are clearly enthusiastic participants in the liturgy. Their leader signs the Mass to them and they sign back all the responses. If an utterly Deaf person can participate with her hands then you can do it with your voice, however feeble it may be.

What’s more, one of my favorite Cardinals is +Daniel DiNardo of Galveston Houston: “DiNardo wears hearing aids because calcium deposits in his ears have impaired his hearing. Despite his hearing difficulties, he still prefers to sing or chant parts of the Mass.” I highly recommend that you listen to him sing sometime, it is quite magnificent.

You cannot claim that the faithful is obligated, however, to sing in the liturgy. It is wholly their choice and there is no sin to not do so.

 

[Elizium23]

You cannot claim that the faithful is obligated, however, to sing in the liturgy. It is wholly their choice and there is no sin to not do so.

I can and I will. Is the priest not obligated to recite his parts? The faithful are obligated to say the responses when it is their part to do so, and obligated to sing when it is designated to them. It is your part of the liturgy. Barring a disability, of course. Nobody is obligated to genuflect if they had knee surgery, but the young and able are. Nobody is obligated to receive communion on the tongue, but what’s a double amputee to do? We are obligated by the Precepts of the Church to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, and we are obligated by Holy Tradition and liturgical law to be “full, conscious and active participants”.

The documents are written in such a way as to presume singing. There is a thread, I can dig it up if you really put me under duress, where I quoted numerous Church documents which mandate singing from the faithful. Just as a taste of these documents, here is what the master governing document for the whole liturgy, the GIRM has to say about singing:
GIRM:

The Importance of Singing

1. The Christian faithful who come together as one in expectation of the Lord’s coming are instructed by the Apostle Paul to sing together Psalms, hymns, and spiritual canticles (cf. Col 3:16). Singing is the sign of the heart’s joy (cf. Acts 2:46). Thus St. Augustine says rightly, “Singing is for one who loves,”[48] and there is also an ancient proverb: “Whoever sings well prays twice over.”
2. Great importance should therefore be attached to the use of singing in the celebration of the Mass, with due consideration for the culture of peoples and abilities of each liturgical assembly. Although it is not always necessary (e.g., in weekday Masses) to sing all the texts that are in principle meant to be sung, every care should be taken that singing by the ministers and the people not be absent in celebrations that occur on Sundays and on Holydays of Obligation.

However, in the choosing of the parts actually to be sung, preference is to be given to those that are of greater importance and especially to those which are to be sung by the Priest or the Deacon or a reader, with the people replying, or by the Priest and people together.[49]

1. The main place should be given, all things being equal, to Gregorian chant, as being proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other kinds of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful.[50]

Since the faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is desirable that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Profession of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer, according to the simpler settings.[51]

We are commanded by Paul to sing. Great importance is placed upon it. Who am I to disobey a direct Scriptural order by an apostle of Jesus?

[BIBLEDRB]Col 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]

EDIT: Here is the older thread. All the heavy lifting of Church documents occurs in the first page. I can find more if you like. Although I would hope that Sacrosanctum Concilium would be a “case closed” situation - unless you want to start debating the validity of Vatican II - are ultra-traditionalists against singing too?

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 26:30[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Psalm 99:1-2[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Ephesians 5:19[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[dshix]

I can and I will. Is the priest not obligated to recite his parts? The faithful are obligated to say the responses when it is their part to do so, and obligated to sing when it is designated to them. It is your part of the liturgy. Barring a disability, of course. Nobody is obligated to genuflect if they had knee surgery, but the young and able are. Nobody is obligated to receive communion on the tongue, but what’s a double amputee to do? We are obligated by the Precepts of the Church to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, and we are obligated by Holy Tradition and liturgical law to be “full, conscious and active participants”.

The documents are written in such a way as to presume singing. There is a thread, I can dig it up if you really put me under duress, where I quoted numerous Church documents which mandate singing from the faithful. Just as a taste of these documents, here is what the master governing document for the whole liturgy, the GIRM has to say about singing:

We are commanded by Paul to sing. Great importance is placed upon it. Who am I to disobey a direct Scriptural order by an apostle of Jesus?

[BIBLEDRB]Col 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]

Heh.

Again, I must reiterate, we do not have an OBLIGATION to sing. Great importance is placed upon it, and it is greatly favored, but there is no sin in remaining silent.

Permit me to just say, as an aside, that I am a very active choir member at my Traditional Mass parish and sing the propers for every sunday, as well as the ordinary. I do this at two masses every sunday, and enjoy it greatly. The congregation also sings whenever appropriate. However, I will not accept the notion that it is somehow gravely wrong to not sing when you are part of the congregation.

If you still disagree with me, can you quote the CCC where it says it is morally wrong for the faithful to fail to sing in the liturgy?

 

[wmw]

Heh.

If you still disagree with me, can you quote the CCC where it says it is morally wrong for the faithful to fail to sing in the liturgy?

Yes, it is in the CCC Paragraph 2837 that the “Hymns” you “hear and sing” as properly ordered in the Mass are also “our daily bread” and included as “necessities”.

2837 “Daily” (epiousios) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical repetition of "this day,"128 to confirm us in trust “without reservation.” Taken in the qualitative sense, it signifies what is necessary for life, and more broadly every good thing sufficient for subsistence.129 Taken literally (epi-ousios: “super-essential”), it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the “medicine of immortality,” without which we have no life within us.130 Finally in this connection, its heavenly meaning is evident: “this day” is the Day of the Lord, the day of the feast of the kingdom, anticipated in the Eucharist that is already the foretaste of the kingdom to come. For this reason it is fitting for the Eucharistic liturgy to be celebrated each day.

The Eucharist is our daily bread. the power belonging to this divine food makes it a bond of union. Its effect is then understood as unity, so that, gathered into his Body and made members of him, we may become what we receive… This also is our daily bread: the readings you hear each day in church and the hymns you hear and sing. All these are necessities for our pilgrimage.131

The Father in heaven urges us, as children of heaven, to ask for the bread of heaven. [Christ] himself is the bread who, sown in the Virgin, raised up in the flesh, kneaded in the Passion, baked in the oven of the tomb, reserved in churches, brought to altars, furnishes the faithful each day with food from heaven.132

 

[Elizium23]

You have seen the Scripture quotes which support the need to sing. You have seen the foundational documents, the General Instruction on the Roman Missal and the Catechism both stress the requirement of song. Now here are the Early Church Fathers, drawn from a very interesting Presbyterian article. Even Protestants think that singing is important!

The History of Psalm Singing in the Christian Church
Terry Johnson:

The church fathers and earliest Christian writings demonstrate a devotion to the Psalms, and particularly to the singing of the Psalms, that is startling. Calvin Stapert speaks of the fathers’ “enthusiastic promotion of psalm-singing” which he says, “reached an unprecedented peak in the fourth century.” James McKinnon speaks of “an unprecedented wave of enthusiasm” for the psalms in the second half of the fourth century. The writers of The Psalms in Christian Worship and others, including most recently John D. Witvliet, have collected a number of testimonies of psalm-singing from the church fathers that survive to this day. For example, Tertullian (c. 155-230), in the Second Century, testified that Psalm-singing was not only an essential feature of the worship of his day, but also had become an important part of the daily life of the people. Athanasius (300-343 A.D.) says it was the custom of his day to sing Psalms, which he calls “a mirror of the soul,” and even “a book that includes the whole life of man, all conditions of the mind and all movements of thought.” Eusebius (c. 260 - c. 340), Bishop of Caesarea left this vivid picture of the Psalm-singing of his day:

The command to sing Psalms in the name of the Lord was obeyed by everyone in every place: for the command to sing is in force in all churches which exist among nations, not only the Greeks but also throughout the whole world, and in towns, villages and in the fields.20

Basil the Great (c. 330-379) comments in his sermons on the Psalms on the “harmonious psalm tunes” which mix “sweetness of melody with doctrine” and are sung by the people not only in the churches but “at home” and “in the marketplace” as well.21 Augustine (343-430 A.D.) in his Confessions (ix.4) says of them, "They are sung through the whole world, and there is nothing hid from the heart thereof."22

Yes, you read that correctly. It is a command to sing. It is a Divine Command from God Himself. Surely Jesus Himself had a well-trained tongue and was accustomed to singing and chanting liturgically. He was known to read from Isaiah in the synagogue: the bulk of Isaiah is set in my Bible in a poetic format, which means that the Hebrew is in verse and clearly meant to be sung. Jesus certainly sang at the Last Supper, which is the supreme primordial Mass. The Church has been singing psalms and hymns for millennia since before we were a Church, when we were known as Jews. Surely Abraham and Moses sang with the people. David was especially fond of singing and his 150 psalms are canonized in our Holy Scripture. Do you deny the canonicity of the holy psalms handed down carefully by generations in our liturgical worship?

This is but a taste. There are more quotes from the Church Fathers in the article if you follow the link. I encourage you to learn more about song and about the Church. How can it be optional if God, the Apostles, the ECFs and the whole Church in her Ecumenical Councils have commanded us to sing?

 

[liturgyluver]

Yes, it is in the CCC Paragraph 2837 that the “Hymns” you “hear and sing” as properly ordered in the Mass are also “our daily bread” and included as “necessities”.

I agree with you. Also the GIRM states:

*II. The Functions of the People of God

1. In the celebration of Mass the faithful form a holy people, a people of God’s own possession and a royal Priesthood, so that they may give thanks to God and offer the unblemished sacrificial Victim not only by means of the hands of the Priest but also together with him and so that they may learn to offer their very selves.They should, moreover, take care to show this by their deep religious sense and their charity toward brothers and sisters who participate with them in the same celebration.

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*

 

[superamazingman]

I can and I will. Is the priest not obligated to recite his parts? The faithful are obligated to say the responses when it is their part to do so, and obligated to sing when it is designated to them. It is your part of the liturgy. Barring a disability, of course. Nobody is obligated to genuflect if they had knee surgery, but the young and able are. Nobody is obligated to receive communion on the tongue, but what’s a double amputee to do? We are obligated by the Precepts of the Church to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, and we are obligated by Holy Tradition and liturgical law to be “full, conscious and active participants”.

Again, you keep saying “full, conscious and active participants.” But look at the phrase:

full: not focusing on other things. Possible while prayerfully listening
conscious: the quality or state of being aware. Very possible, sometimes easier while prayerfully listening
active: Like I said below:

“Active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it.” - John Paul II

You continue to quote “full, conscious and active participants” as if it backs up your point, but really, it is referring to the internal disposition of the worshiper, not the external actions.

We are commanded by Paul to sing. Great importance is placed upon it. Who am I to disobey a direct Scriptural order by an apostle of Jesus?

Anyone can quote random verses of scripture to to prove pretty much any point. But as I said above, and as John Paul II said, there is also merit to simply listening to the music of the liturgy. There is no obligation to sing. Anyways, who decides when the choir sings and when the people sing? Does the priest turn around and say “you are now obligated to sing??”

 

[superamazingman]

You have seen the Scripture quotes which support the need to sing. You have seen the foundational documents, the General Instruction on the Roman Missal and the Catechism both stress the requirement of song. Now here are the Early Church Fathers, drawn from a very interesting Presbyterian article. Even Protestants think that singing is important!

Because, of course, protestants understand the Catholic liturgy very well.

 

[Elizium23]

Again, you keep saying “full, conscious and active participants.” But look at the phrase:

full: not focusing on other things. Possible while prayerfully listening
conscious: the quality or state of being aware. Very possible, sometimes easier while prayerfully listening
active: Like I said below:

“Active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it.” - John Paul II

You continue to quote “full, conscious and active participants” as if it backs up your point, but really, it is referring to the internal disposition of the worshiper, not the external actions.

Participation is external as well. Our external actions reflect our interior dispositions. Your quote of Blessed John Paul the Great is now out of context, nowhere did he say “it’s ok not to sing”. What he meant by this quote is that we are commanded to be silent and attend to the parts of the liturgy that are not ours to sing. Certainly we should be silent while the cantor proclaims the song verses. But the Responsorial Psalm has that name for a reason. The people are obligated to respond with their voices, and in Dailiy Mass this usually means speaking, but in a Solemn or Sunday Mass, it means song.

Anyone can quote random verses of scripture to to prove pretty much any point.

Then I welcome you to quote Scripture to support the point that singing is optional. Go ahead, try. You can also quote Church documents and ECFs who say we needn’t sing. Be my guest. I was accused in the other thread of “cherry picking” when in fact the only quotes I can find on singing all back me up 100% that it is a Divine Commandment.

 

[dshix]

As of yet, no one has given me proof that it is morally wrong, sinful, to fail to sing in the liturgy.

 

[dshix]

Participation is external as well. Our external actions reflect our interior dispositions. Your quote of Blessed John Paul the Great is now out of context, nowhere did he say “it’s ok not to sing”.

Then I welcome you to quote Scripture to support the point that singing is optional. Go ahead, try. You can also quote Church documents and ECFs who say we needn’t sing. Be my guest. I was accused in the other thread of “cherry picking” when in fact the only quotes I can find on singing all back me up 100% that it is a Divine Commandment.

What you ask seems reasonable, but it is impossible for us to prove a negative. The bible doesn’t say that we are NOT obligated to sing in the liturgy, there is not a place for it.

When you are trying to prove a positive, you can give proof. You have given a lot of proof for why it is preferable, and why we should do it, and I entirely agree with you, but nowhere does it say that it is sinful NOT to sing, which is the point you are trying to get across.

 

[Elizium23]

As of yet, no one has given me proof that it is morally wrong, sinful, to fail to sing in the liturgy.

Liturgical law is as surely binding as Canon Law is in the Church. The GIRM clearly lays out what is licit and what is not. The GIRM is unequivocal that the sung parts are to be sung by the appropriate people. Just as it is illicit for a priest to omit, say, the Penitential Rite, it is illicit for the people to omit a response proper to them, say, the Sanctus.

Let me remind you how the Preface is ordinarily heard by the people:

It is truly right and just, our duty and salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks, Father most holy, through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, your Word through whom you made all things, whom you sent as our Savior and Redeemer, incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin. Fulfilling your will and gaining for you a holy people, he stretched out his hands as he endured his Passion, so as to break the bonds of death and manifest the resurrection. And so, with the Angels and all the Saints we declare your glory, as with one voice we acclaim:

“With one voice” that is a liturgical command to sing. Making it illicit to omit the response to this acclamation.

 

[Elizium23]

What you ask seems reasonable, but it is impossible for us to prove a negative. The bible doesn’t say that we are NOT obligated to sing in the liturgy, there is not a place for it.

When you are trying to prove a positive, you can give proof. You have given a lot of proof for why it is preferable, and why we should do it, and I entirely agree with you, but nowhere does it say that it is sinful NOT to sing, which is the point you are trying to get across.

There are a lot of things in the GIRM which are positive commands. Nowhere in the GIRM is it spelled out that it is illicit to omit the Penitential Rite. However it is a required part of the Order of Mass. It is listed in the Missal, it goes between the Opening Rites and the Gloria. Does the GIRM have to make a list of every part of the Mass and cite them saying, “Do not omit this or else.”

I could ask you to cite the paragraph in the Catechism where it says it is illicit and sinful for the priest to omit the Eucharistic Prayer. You cannot. There is no passage in Canon Law which says he has to say it. Yet without the EP we have no Mass, no Eucharist. Why, then, does our priest always, invariably, 100% of the time recite the Eucharistic Prayer during Mass?
GIRM:

1. The Gloria in excelsis (Glory to God in the highest) is a most ancient and venerable hymn by which the Church, gathered in the Holy Spirit, glorifies and entreats God the Father and the Lamb. The text of this hymn may not be replaced by any other. It is intoned by the Priest or, if appropriate, by a cantor or by the choir; but it is sung either by everyone together, or by the people alternately with the choir, or by the choir alone.

So this is a decision made by the liturgist. If the liturgist decides that the people sing the Gloria, then “everyone … sings … together”. That is a liturgical law. To disobey it is illicit.

 

[dshix]

“With one voice” that is a liturgical command to sing. Making it illicit to omit the response to this acclamation.

That’s your own personal interpretation. Sure, you could look at it that way but you could also not.

 

[dshix]

I have an idea. How about we submit a question to the AAA forum and ask “Is it sinful to not sing in Mass?”

 

[Elizium23]

1157 Song and music fulfill their function as signs in a manner all the more significant when they are "more closely connected . . . with the liturgical action,"22 according to three principal criteria: beauty expressive of prayer, the unanimous participation of the assembly at the designated moments, and the solemn character of the celebration. In this way they participate in the purpose of the liturgical words and actions: the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful

To superamazingman, it seems that you and the Catechism have different concepts of “unanimous participation”.

 

[dshix]

Elizium,

So based on what you have said, would you agree that every single person in every single parish who does not sing for whatever reason is sinning gravely, and every pastor in the world is also sinning for not informing them of this?

 

[ProVobis]

I can and I will. Is the priest not obligated to recite his parts? The faithful are obligated to say the responses when it is their part to do so, and obligated to sing when it is designated to them. It is your part of the liturgy.

And if one chooses to go to an Italian or Polish Mass, where he may have no idea how to pronounce the words but may know how to read or listen in the language?

 

[Elizium23]

And if one chooses to go to an Italian or Polish Mass, where he may have no idea how to pronounce the words but may know how to read or listen in the language?

How is that situation any different for speaking the responses? The person in such a situation is treated the same way as a person with a disability, he is exempted from doing something that is physically impossible.