Singing at Mass: "traditional"?

[The_Prodigal]

A few of the current threads on CAF and some personal observations about singing at Mass has got me wondering: is singing at Mass (by the congregation) part of the Catholic tradition as experienced by most?

My observations are, in general, a decided lack of participation at both sung EF and OF Masses.

As far as the EF Masses go, my experience is limited to two parishes.

In my own, the congregants normally don’t sing those parts of the ordinary that they might be expected to because they are familiar with the tunes after hearing them over and over. Our pastor has made it known that he wants the congregation to join in; to little avail. The choir does all the singing, except for one or two souls, like me, who join in with the Creed. For the Creed at least, the choir is in synch with what’s happening on the altar, and our priest does not sit - he sings as well; based on these facts there is really no reason for anyone not to sing.

At another parish’s EF, I notice a limited amount of participation during the Mass, and slightly more so during the Creed. Included in the bulletin is a copy of the recessional hymn, which most join in singing.

So, regarding the EF: could it be that a biased appreciation of the Low Mass as the ‘norm’ leads the congregation to avoid singing? Was it common in the old days for people to join in, or generally to remain silent in the missa cantata?

As far as to the OF goes, I’ve been to many parishes through the years. There is a wide variability. Some sing the hymns and responsorial psalm. At some, there is little to no singing except for the choir or cantor. I think it’s fair to say that, in general, the older the congregation tends to be, the less singing one hears.

So, I have reached the tentative conclusion from these observations that older Catholics are quite unused to singing at all during Mass; I also surmise that this is a direct result of the lingering influence of the Low Mass ‘mindset’ of quietness during the Mass.

Admittedly my experience is limited geographically to the greater NYC region.

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

In my Latin Mass parish nobody dares sing with the choir except for any hymns before or after Mass. I feel no need to participate in this fashion since to me, with the choir behind and above me, it is as if you’re in heaven with unseen angels above you singing. While God may certainly appreciate any attempt on my part, I would rather refrain from my vulgar, non-musical, voice from tainting such purity. But that’s just me…

 

[CB_Catholic]

I think at the OF it varies a lot by parish and depends on the type of music. Some of the music at my parish is difficult to sing because it is out of the vocal range of the average parishoner, esp. some of the contemporary songs. The old-time hymns are usually easier to sing. We only have organ or piano music, and some of the newer songs don’t seem to jive with the pipe organ.

I don’t remember singing all that much at Mass when it was in Latin, in my youth, but I remember that people sang louder because the music was easier to sing to, and the Marian hymns were favorites.

 

[Phemie]

I know that I never experienced congregational singing before Vatican II no matter where I attended Mass. At daily Mass, if there was any singing at all, it was a single cantor (usually a teenager who sang with the choir on Sundays) and at Sunday Mass, the choir sang. End of story. We never would have presumed to sing from our pews. That’s why it was so difficult convincing people to sing after V.II.

I also never experienced a dialog Mass, only the altar servers responded to the priest’s words.

 

[Wonko_the_Sane]

I attend EF at the Maternal Heart Chapel at Lewisham, Sydney, and the community knows the chants to the ordinary, and so everyone joins in.
I love High Mass there, with my Liber Usualis in my hand, singing along with the schola and the congregation, music that is over 1500 years old.

 

[Cluny]

There is a book by Thomas Day called WHY CATHOLICS CAN’T SING.

This seems to be a custom inherited from the Irish, who were forced by penal laws to have Mass celebrated secretly, though hundreds might attend. And the best way was, obiously, a silent Low Mass.

He contrasted this with Cardinal Mundelein, who was German, and made it clear he expected an orchestra for Sunday High Mass.

 

[Chatter163]

Once again we have the notion expressed that ONLY through conspicious verbal articulation can people “participate.” …SIGH…

 

[Yours_Truly]

Once again we have the notion expressed that ONLY through conspicious verbal articulation can people “participate.” …SIGH…

Exactly. What is the most important part of participation? It is not any external activity, such as shaking hands with our neighbor or singing. The most important part is a spiritual participation by which we unite ourselves with the sacrifice being offered. The most important part of participation, then, is the interior and spiritual part, which excessive external activity can actually hinder.

If one is performing a bunch of exterior actions, it is difficult to be spiritually engaged. A propery balance is necessary. Considering other thread on the Mass, it is evident that most Catholics today (and these are Catholics who are zealous enough to spend their time posting on this message board), actually don’t even know what the Mass is. One person in another thread admitted that after years of attending Mass, and being a fervent Catholics, he realized that he wasn’t quite sure when transubsantiation took place.

Those who attend a Traditional Mass and follow along in their missals by praying the prayers with the Priest are participating in the Mass in a way that most in the Novus Ordo will never experience. Those who are unaware of this deeper participation believe that to properly participate, they must be performing exterior actions, such as bringing up the bread and wine during the offerings, in order to be truly participating. That is a distortion and disorientation. Active participation is primarily a *spiritually *active participation, which external activity actually hinders.

 

[Cluny]

**If one is performing a bunch of exterior actions, it is difficult to be spiritually engaged. **

Not necessarily.

One way of exercising our spirituality IS by our external actions. There’s a book by a a man who was a Protestant at the time and is now an Orthodox Priest called THE PHYSICAL SIDE OF BEING SPIRITUAL.

A spirituality that is merely invisible and inward is the spirituality of demons.

One of the purposes of the Lenten Fast is to train our spirits by being thus exteriorily engaged in limiting our food.

 

[Yours_Truly]

**If one is performing a bunch of exterior actions, it is difficult to be spiritually engaged. **

Not necessarily.

One way of exercising our spirituality IS by our external actions. There’s a book by a a man who was a Protestant at the time and is now an Orthodox Priest called THE PHYSICAL SIDE OF BEING SPIRITUAL.

No offense, but I’m not interested in what a heretic thinks, and Orthodox are heretics.

But back to the point, I’m not saying that there should not be any external activity. My only point was that too much external activity can hinder spiritual participation. Try saying the Rosary and performing a bunch of activities. It will hinder the depth of the meditation.

A spirituality that is merely invisible and inward is the spirituality of demons.

And of angels, right? The difference is, devils don’t worship God but the angels do - and they do so purely spiritually with no admixture of matter.

One of the purposes of the Lenten Fast is to train our spirits by being thus exteriorily engaged in limiting our food.

That’s not quite right. We aren’t exteriorly engaged in limiting our food. We are interiorly engaged by resisting the fleshly (external) urges (for food, etc.) that are brought under control of reason by denying them. The denial of food strengthens the spirit by denying the externals that continually tug on our will. By bringing them under the control of reason, we are able to keep from being led away from God by these disordered tendencies.

Just as giving in to the flesh hinders us from following the spirit, so too too much external activity hinders our union with God.

 

[DavidPalm]

Once again we have the notion expressed that ONLY through conspicious verbal articulation can people “participate.” …SIGH…

Actually, a whole line of Popes–St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II–have been trying to get the people to chant the Ordinary of the Mass. It seems strange to me that, in some circles at least, making sure the people are silent during Mass is seen as particularly traditional. I think Michael Davies got it right when he noted that what a lot of folks consider “traditional” is really just local custom. There are many places where the silent congregation was the norm and so that’s considered traditional, but this seems to me to run contrary to the stated will of the Roman Pontiffs.

 

[malphono]

No offense, but I’m not interested in what a heretic thinks, and Orthodox are heretics.

No, that is incorrect. The Orthodox are not, and have never been, in heresy.

 

[Cluny]

And of angels, right? The difference is, devils don’t worship God but the angels do - and they do so purely spiritually with no admixture of matter.

Wrong.

According the Bible, the Holy Angels use incense in heaven.

 

[Yours_Truly]

No, that is incorrect. The Orthodox are not, and have never been, in heresy.

I think I’ve seen you make that statement before and have no idea why you think that. A heretic is someone who denies an infallibly defined dogma. The heretical and schismatic Orthodox reject 13 council, and deny other infallible dogmas, such as the primary of the Pope.

Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. "The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval.

A person only has to deny one dogma to be a heretic and loose all supernatural faith.

 

[Appleby]

I am a newish Catholic (2 years and counting) but have attended three parishes so far and it is my experience that it’s local option. The parish I attend now refers to a Sung English Mass but it is not in fact sung in English; the congregation chants the Ordinaries in Latin, along with the choir. There is only one hymn, a recessional, and it is not one of the “modern” or Protestant hymns such as were used in my last parish. (I believe the choirmaster there had a weird sense of humour, as there is something a little bit funny in seeing a largely Filipino congregation trying to sing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” for example.)

Personally I love chant and I can read and understand Latin. But I also attend TLM because in that one the congregation do not sing and it is possible to be quiet and mediate on what one is hearing and experiencing.

 

[malphono]

I think I’ve seen you make that statement before and have no idea why you think that. A heretic is someone who denies an infallibly defined dogma. The heretical and schismatic Orthodox reject 13 council, and deny other infallible dogmas, such as the primary of the Pope.

A person only has to deny one dogma to be a heretic and loose all supernatural faith.

With due respect, it’s not merely “my” position. I might suggest you submit your query to the Holy Office.

 

[malphono]

Actually, a whole line of Popes–St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II–have been trying to get the people to chant the Ordinary of the Mass. It seems strange to me that, in some circles at least, making sure the people are silent during Mass is seen as particularly traditional. I think Michael Davies got it right when he noted that what a lot of folks consider “traditional” is really just local custom. There are many places where the silent congregation was the norm and so that’s considered traditional, but this seems to me to run contrary to the stated will of the Roman Pontiffs.

That is a very good point. It seems to me that the paradigm for High Mass can be found in a Conventual (High) Mass, where the congregation is engaged in singing both the Ordinary and the Propers.

I suppose I can understand that the average lay churchgoer would be at a loss to sing the Propers, and often even the Ordinary, which would explain the existence of the choir, but just because there is a choir (or schola) doesn’t mean that those in the congregation who are able are forbidden to sing along. Calls to mind the old adage “he who sings prays twice.”

Low Mass is another story, but even there PP Benedict XV introduced the missa recitata (aka “Dialogue Mass”) which was reinforced by PP Pius XII. Sadly, it never really caught on in the US.

 

[Ockham]

**A spirituality that is merely invisible and inward is the spirituality of demons.

Oh, please.

Our spirituality is not dependent upon external actions. Jesus told that when we want to pray go into our rooms and shut the door. The term “active participation” was originally placed in the context of the music ministry. The ‘spirit of Vatican II’ hijacked the phrase and applied it to lectors, offeratory hymns, handshakes, and laity handling the consecrated hosts.

 

[Yours_Truly]

With due respect, it’s not merely “my” position. I might suggest you submit your query to the Holy Office.

Why would I submit it to the holy office? Everyone with a basic understanding of the faith realizes that one who denies a dogma is a heretic. That is the definition of heresy.

Pocket Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John Hardin:

HERESY: “In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally Christian, pertinaciously dnenies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic.”

Catholic Encyclopedia:

Catalogue of the Eastern Churches

It is now possible to draw up the list of bodies that answer to our definition. We have already noted that they are by no means all in communion with each other, nor have they any common basis of language, rite or faith. All are covered by a division into the great Orthodox Church, those formed by the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies (the original Monothelites are now all Eastern-Rite Catholics), and lastly the Catholic Eastern Rites corresponding in each case to a schismatical body. Theologically, to Catholics, the vital distinction is between Eastern Catholic [those in union with Rome], on the one hand, and schismatics or heretics, on the other.

Schismatical Churches

1. Orthodox

The first of the Eastern Churches in size and importance is the great Orthodox Church. This is, after that of the Catholics, considerably the largest body in Christendom. The Orthodox Church now counts about a hundred millions of members. It is the main body of Eastern Christendom, that remained faithful to the decrees of Ephesus and Chalcedon when Nestorianism and Monophysitism cut away the national Churches in Syria and Egypt. It remained in union with the West till the great schism of Photius and then that of Caerularius, in the ninth and eleventh centuries. In spite of the short-lived reunions made by the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439), this Church has been in schism ever since.
newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm

Here’s a quote from Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Satis Cognitum, which explains that if anyone denies even one divinely revealed truth, he looses all faith.

Pope Leo XIII: "Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).

The Orthodox reject 13 councils, as well as the dogma of the Primacy of the Pope. Here’s what Pope Boniface says of those who reject the office of the Pope.

continue…

 

[Yours_Truly]

continuation

Pope Boniface, Bull Unam Sanctum: "We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep’ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks [Orthodox] or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’

.

Where in the world did you ever get the idea that the Orthodox - who reject many dogmas of the faith - are not heretics? And if they are not heretics, what about the Arians? Or the Nestorians, or the Pelagians? If you claim that the Orthodox are not heretics, on what basis would you consider the above mentioned to be heretics? And if you say the Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, etc, are heretics, why would you not consider the Orthodox to be heretics?

It is very simple, any person or group who denies a single dogma, by that very fact becomes a heretic, and the Orthodox deny many dogmas.