Singing of the Lord's Prayer

  • Thread starter Thread starter rondirect
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My parish typically simply recites the Our Father. We never sing it, but sometimes we do chant it.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
40.png
babochka:
We always sing it, but we’re Byzantine so we sing everything. 😁
Click to expand...
Sing or chant? I thought you guys typically chant?
Click to expand...
Chanting is a form of singing.
 
babochka said:
40.png
phil19034:
40.png
babochka:
We always sing it, but we’re Byzantine so we sing everything. 😁
Click to expand...
Sing or chant? I thought you guys typically chant?
Click to expand...
Chanting is a form of singing.
Click to expand...
True, but for the most part chant and song are considered different due to the different musical notes, etc. Chant may be considered speech, music, or a heightened or stylized form of speech, while song is always music.

Chant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
40.png
babochka:
40.png
phil19034:
40.png
babochka:
We always sing it, but we’re Byzantine so we sing everything. 😁
Click to expand...
Sing or chant? I thought you guys typically chant?
Click to expand...
Chanting is a form of singing.
Click to expand...
True, but for the most part chant and song are considered different due to the different musical notes, etc. Chant may be considered speech, music, or a heightened or stylized form of speech, while song is always music.

Chant - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
You start out by saying “True”, but then go on to try to prove the opposite.

Maybe we need a Venn diagram to show the overlap between chanting and singing?

From the wikipedia article you linked to: A chant (from French chanter, from Latin cantare, “to sing”) is the iterative speaking or singing of words or sounds,

I’m required to use my mediocre singing voice to vocally participate in the Our Father, therefore I call it singing.

This is what we do: http://mci.archpitt.org/recordings/DivineLiturgies/065LordsPrayerTone1.mp3

Call it what you will.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
Yeah, I would consider that chant, not song. 😎
Click to expand...
Can you link to an example of what you would consider singing?

(I usually love to argue semantics, but I’m just not getting you on this one. The very definitionof chant that you provided says that the word comes from the Latin word “to sing” and involves…singing!))
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
40.png
rondirect:
B: Let me understand this please. So the sung version changes the words to a prayer that our Lord gave us to fit the music. Then after it is sung, you then recite it in the “standard” form? Nothing personal to you Bartholomew of course, it is not your decision, but am I the only one that thinks this is wrong in both cases?
Click to expand...
I try and make a distinction between my own personal preferences and what I judge to be “right” or “wrong.” I certainly see nothing wrong with the solution I described. It has the advantage that for those who prefer not to sing, or for the occasional outside visitor who might not be familiar with the musical arrangement, the Our Father is not omitted.

As for the slight changes to the wording in the sung version, you could probably say the same about most musical settings of liturgical or Biblical texts. Here, for instance, is the full lyric, including all the repetitions, of Schubert’s setting of the Ave Maria. (I just found this by googling for it, but from memory I believe it is correct.)

Ave Maria
Gratia plena
Maria, gratia plena
Maria, gratia plena
Ave, ave dominus
Dominus tecum
Benedicta tu in mulieribus
Et benedictus
Et benedictus fructus ventris
Ventris tuae, Jesus.
Ave Maria

Ave Maria
Mater Dei
Ora pro nobis peccatoribus
Ora pro nobis
Ora, ora pro nobis peccatoribus
Nunc et in hora mortis
Et in hora mortis nostrae
Et in hora mortis nostrae
Et in hora mortis nostrae
Ave Maria

Should a rather trite, easy-to-sing arrangement of the Our Father be held to higher standards than Schubert?
Click to expand...
Ouch. Of course - - because the Our Father is part of the liturgy! Schubert is not. A lot of music folk I know think that the Schubert is trite and maudlin, certainly not suitable for the liturgy.
Here is what a rather well-informed group of folks thinks about the setting by Robert Snow (the one commonly used in the US):
“I think Robert Snow deserves credit for his setting of the “Our Father”. It’s the most successful and well-liked piece of English-language chant composed in the past 50 years, and that’s enough reason to keep it around. I suppose it dates to around 1966, as I’ve found it published in a hand Missal from that time (the “Saint Paul Daily Missal”). The book’s acknowledgements say that the musical settings in it were approved by the National Conference of Bishops.”
https://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/5936/our-father-tone/p1
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
40.png
babochka:
40.png
phil19034:
Yeah, I would consider that chant, not song. 😎
Click to expand...
Can you link to an example of what you would consider singing?

(I usually love to argue semantics, but I’m just not getting you on this one. The very definitionof chant that you provided says that the word comes from the Latin word “to sing” and involves…singing!))
Click to expand...
What you posted = chant

This is song
“‪‪
Click to expand...
I meant a sung “Our Father”. One that might be used at Mass.

The Metropolitan Cantor Institute is pretty sure that what we do in the Divine Liturgy is sing…and chant. The Metropolitan Cantor Institute takes liturgical music very seriously.

http://mci.archpitt.org/MCI/Cantor_role.html
The cantor leads the singing of the faithful
The cantor is not a soloist. Almost all the parts of the service that are chanted or sung by a single voice are assigned to other individuals:

The bishop or priest chants the blessings and prayers of the service.
The deacon chants the petitions of the litanies, as well as directions to the assembly (e.g. “Wisdom! Be attentive!”), and the Gospel reading at the Divine Liturgy.
The lector chants the Old and New Testament readings (other than the Gospel), the verses at the prokeimenon and alleluia, and those psalms that are assigned to a single voice.
The cantor, on the other hand, sings with the congregation. By beginning each hymn with a firm, clear voice, at a reasonable pitch and an appropriate tempo, he indicates the melody, pitch and rhythm to be used, enabling all those present to sing together.

(There are a few points in the services at which the cantor does sing alone. For example, at Vespers and Matins, the cantor sings the psalm verses or pripivy which set the melody for the next hymns that follow; and at Christmas, he sings the troparion of the Nativity in the middle of the church, holding a lighted candle. But these are exceptional cases.)
Click to expand...
 
You just took me back to my childhood in the 90s. I had totally forgotten about singing the Lord’s prayer at Mass. Personally, I prefer reciting it. It gives me better focus on the words and not on hitting the notes. I don’t really have an answer to your thread but thanks for the nostalgia.
 
Last edited:
B: Sorry, I do not mean to be argumentative or be disrespectful, but the Catholic version of the Lord’s Prayer is what we believe as Catholics are the words that the Lord has given us on “how should we pray?” That must stand firm. Just because one likes a musical version of the Lord’s Prayer which includes “slight” changes to the LP, in my opinion, should be avoided. Yes, the same can be said regarding other liturgical settings, biblical texts like a metrical Psalm, but the instructions are clear on that: paraphrasing is acceptable. Here, we taking the words of our Lord and paraphrasing it to fit the music. It is similar to the lector proclaiming the Word and doing the same thing because he or she does like wording of the text, e.g. "I prefer to say “donkey.” I don’t believe we have that authority to change to words of God. Also, as far as I know, it is liturgically incorrect to repeat a part of the Mass for any reason; e.g. a bilingual Mass: proclaiming the Word in Spanish and then repeating it in English. I wonder what your diocesan bishop has to say on these matters.
With that said, I know of one thing we do that is liturgically incorrect, but that’s another topic!
 
Rondirect:
Are you saying that there isn’t an Our Father chant in English that is sung word for word according to the approved Catholic translation? The Our Father prayer, then the part that the priest pray or chant and then the Doxology "For yours is the kingdom… forever and ever. Amen. (or how it goes in English). If that is the case then I think it is better to recite it.
 
HeDa: What I am saying is that the Roman Catholic version is, as far as I know, specific to what the translation is that Jesus said. “Jesus said” are the operative words here. Other denominations have varying translations. Yes, there are chants, specifically the Robert Snow version mentioned here a number of times, that is pretty much familiar to many that is word for word accurate and is in most missals; our WLP does. I’ve also seen or heard other composers of chant or metrical style compositions that are also spot on. If I’m not mistaken, per RM 3, the priest’s part (embolism) has changed slightly. What I am saying here is that we do not have the authority to change the wording of the Lord’s Prayer because it fits the music meter better; probably one written by a local music director or parishioner, just like a lector cannot change the wording of the Word of God in a Lectionary to fit their own taste.
 
I never realized this was such an issue. In my parish, one priest seems partial to speaking it, the other to singing it. Incidentally, the priest who sings it is the priest who leads our weekly Latin Masses. I don’t know if that’s why he prefers it. We sing it in English, not Latin, however, except of course at the Latin Mass. When we sing it, it is to the same tune as we sing it in Latin.
 
We sing a beautiful Catholic version of the Our Father at oour parish. I am sorry I don’t know who the composer is.
 
Really not an issue Grey, per se. However, my response is that someone said that they actually changed the words to better fit the musical setting, which is totally unacceptable. And, furthermore, after singing it, they recite it for those who do not want to sing; again, totally unacceptable.
 
rondirect said:
However, my response is that someone said that they actually changed the words to better fit the musical setting, which is totally unacceptable. And, furthermore, after singing it, they recite it for those who do not want to sing; again, totally unacceptable.
Click to expand...
Yes, I said that, in my post No. 6 on this thread. You’re quite wrong, of course, about the minor changes in wording compared with the spoken version being “totally unacceptable.” If you knew what the changes were, you might be in a position to judge, but you don’t.
 
My response was not to offend and to say that I “am quite wrong, of course” is judgment in itself. I repeat, no one can change the words that Jesus gave us in our translation of the Lord’s Prayer. Period. Do your Lectors have the authority to change the Word of God in the Sacramentary too? I bet I’m correct in saying that this is a composition written by a church music director or parishioner, not a composition from an approved liturgical source. Bartholomew, I honestly am not trying to be disrespectful at all to you. I’m sorry if I was, but still defend Jesus’ Words in “this is how you should pray…” And, changing His Word to fit the meter of a sung version, should not be done, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top