Things i haven't seen at mass before

[lisa238]

Last night for the Easter Vigil, I attended mass in the parish that my father belongs to, and although I’ve always realized they are a lot more liberal than the more traditional parish i attend myself, I was wondering about some of the things I observed at the mass there.

One thing I did notice was that right before Communion, instead of giving the hosts to the deacons, the priest held out the paten and allowed the deacon to pick up to host from the paten himself and consume it. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I always was taught in Catholic school only a priest could do this.

Also, the priest sang the entire Eucharistic prayer, and although it was beautiful and very different, I found the music slightly distracting. I did not know that this was done, as I had never even heard of it before last night. Is it something that is common in other parishes?

After the mass, my father and my brother both said that I should not have blessed myself with holy water before entering the church for the easter vigil because they said that according to their priest, holy water should not be used during lent, and they told me that my parish was doing the wrong thing by keeping holy water in the fonts until the last few days of lent. Now I am confused as to which way is the right way, as I don’t believe that the Church would allow both ways since it seems to me to conflict with the ideas of unity and universality.

I would greatly appreciate any comments on what I have mentioned, and please note I am not trying to be critical or judgmental of this church I am talking about, I am only wondering how the way they do things compares to other parishes to aid in my understanding of the liturgy.

 

[benedictgal]

Last night for the Easter Vigil, I attended mass in the parish that my father belongs to, and although I’ve always realized they are a lot more liberal than the more traditional parish i attend myself, I was wondering about some of the things I observed at the mass there.

One thing I did notice was that right before Communion, instead of giving the hosts to the deacons, the priest held out the paten and allowed the deacon to pick up to host from the paten himself and consume it. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I always was taught in Catholic school only a priest could do this.

Also, the priest sang the entire Eucharistic prayer, and although it was beautiful and very different, I found the music slightly distracting. I did not know that this was done, as I had never even heard of it before last night. Is it something that is common in other parishes?

After the mass, my father and my brother both said that I should not have blessed myself with holy water before entering the church for the easter vigil because they said that according to their priest, holy water should not be used during lent, and they told me that my parish was doing the wrong thing by keeping holy water in the fonts until the last few days of lent. Now I am confused as to which way is the right way, as I don’t believe that the Church would allow both ways since it seems to me to conflict with the ideas of unity and universality.

I would greatly appreciate any comments on what I have mentioned, and please note I am not trying to be critical or judgmental of this church I am talking about, I am only wondering how the way they do things compares to other parishes to aid in my understanding of the liturgy.

First of all, we do not “take” Holy Communion; we receive. This is what Cardinal Arinze said in a Q and A session published in Adoremus:

Because the nature of the Holy Eucharist is such that the person who is not a priest celebrating the Mass must be given the Body of Christ. You say “amen”. And you receive, on the tongue or in the hand. If you are not the priests celebrating Mass – if you are the deacon assisting – you must be given [Communion]. You may not take. Even if you are bishop or cardinal, and you are not celebrating that Mass, you must be given. You must not take.

For example, if you watch us in Rome in St. Peter’s basilica or square, when the pope is saying a major Mass, there may be 40 cardinals, 100 bishops. When we are not concelebrating – we are wearing red vestments but we are not concelebrating – we are just assisting at Mass as all of you who are baptized. When it is time for Communion, we receive, exactly as everybody else. A deacon comes to us and says “the Body of Christ”. I say “amen”. He gives to me, and the same for all.

None of us is allowed to take. We must be given. This is the Church law. It is not to lower anybody, it is just the nature of the sacrament. Even when Christ multiplied bread and fish, He told the apostles to distribute it. It was a sign. So the Church that regulates Eucharistic practice says that the holy Body and Blood of Christ will be given us. We will not take. Only the celebrating priests or the concelebrating communicate themselves. Everybody else must be given it, even if that person is a bishop or a priest.

As far as the singing of the Eucharistic Prayer, that is allowed, but, only the celebrant is to do it. Furthermore, Redemptionis Sacramentum has this to say on the matter:

[53.] While the Priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer “there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent”,132 except for the people’s acclamations that have been duly approved, as described below.

This means that no one else should be singing, nor should anyone be playing a musical instrument. The celebrant should sing acapella.

Regarding the issue of Holy Water during Lent, this is what the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments said in 2003 (responding to a letter):

1. The liturgical legislation in force does not foresee this innovation, which in addition to being praeter legem is contrary to a balanced understanding of the season of Lent, which though truly being a season of penance, is also a season rich in the symbolism of water and baptism, constantly evoked in liturgical texts.

1. The encouragement of the Church that the faithful avail themselves frequently of the [sic] of her sacraments and sacramentals is to be understood to apply also to the season of Lent. The “fast” and “abstinence” which the faithful embrace in this season does not extend to abstaining from the sacraments or sacramentals of the Church. The practice of the Church has been to empty the Holy Water fonts on the days of the Sacred Triduum in preparation of the blessing of the water at the Easter Vigil, and it corresponds to those days on which the Eucharist is not celebrated (i.e., Good Friday and Holy Saturday).

The only time that the Holy Water fonts are empties is during the Paschal Triduum. I hope this helps.

 

[Phemie]

The only time that the Holy Water fonts are empties is during the Paschal Triduum. I hope this helps.

IOW, there shouldn’t have been any water in the fonts when they arrived for the Vigil, water only went into the fonts after the last Mass today.

 

[agapewolf]

The Document cited here says when the priest “proclaims” the Eucharistic prayer. I agree, when the priest is speaking the Eucharistic prayer that background piano/organ would be distracting.

but when SINGING the EUcharistic prayer, simple chords played quietly to keep the priest on key makes sense as even the best vocalists don’t stay true to the orginial key over long periods of time. THat is how the traditional masses were written as well…for the acclamations to be part of a through composed piece…how on earth can the acclamation be sung if the priest has gone a full step and a half flat? (Ok flute, violin, and brass…I need you to tranpose down on sight…don’t think so)

So, I disagree with the previous poster’s interpretation. However, the playing the chords should not be gaudy, showy, or otherwise distracting. Merely used for support.

Second, you should NOT have blessed yourself with the water before Easter vigil Mass, because it was not “Holy” yet. It is blessed during the mass. There should not be holy water during the Triduum, until during Easter vigil when it is blessed. (But there should be during lent).

As I was setting up for the Easter vigil around 4:30, I had about 5 different people come into the church for a 5 PM mass (which of course we did not have), and try to bless themselves…Uh…thats not holy water! (The reason it was there was because it was in our Large baptismal font being heated and properly chemicled)

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Also, the priest sang the entire Eucharistic prayer, and although it was beautiful and very different, I found the music slightly distracting. I did not know that this was done, as I had never even heard of it before last night. Is it something that is common in other parishes?

There’s another thread where someone is upset because the gospel was chanted. If you are fortunate, then yes, you may hear various parts of the Mass chanted rather than said.

After the mass, my father and my brother both said that I should not have blessed myself with holy water before entering the church for the easter vigil because they said that according to their priest, holy water should not be used during lent, and they told me that my parish was doing the wrong thing by keeping holy water in the fonts until the last few days of lent. Now I am confused as to which way is the right way, as I don’t believe that the Church would allow both ways since it seems to me to conflict with the ideas of unity and universality.

Actually, I would say you shouldn’t bless yourself before the water itself had been blessed and that’s partway through the Easter Vigil. Crossing yourself on the way in was habitual rather than meaningful.

 

[benedictgal]

The Document cited here says when the priest “proclaims” the Eucharistic prayer. I agree, when the priest is speaking the Eucharistic prayer that background piano/organ would be distracting.

but when SINGING the EUcharistic prayer, simple chords played quietly to keep the priest on key makes sense as even the best vocalists don’t stay true to the orginial key over long periods of time. THat is how the traditional masses were written as well…for the acclamations to be part of a through composed piece…how on earth can the acclamation be sung if the priest has gone a full step and a half flat? (Ok flute, violin, and brass…I need you to tranpose down on sight…don’t think so)

So, I disagree with the previous poster’s interpretation. However, the playing the chords should not be gaudy, showy, or otherwise distracting. Merely used for support.

Second, you should NOT have blessed yourself with the water before Easter vigil Mass, because it was not “Holy” yet. It is blessed during the mass. There should not be holy water during the Triduum, until during Easter vigil when it is blessed. (But there should be during lent).

As I was setting up for the Easter vigil around 4:30, I had about 5 different people come into the church for a 5 PM mass (which of course we did not have), and try to bless themselves…Uh…thats not holy water! (The reason it was there was because it was in our Large baptismal font being heated and properly chemicled)

Agapewolf, again, that is your intepretation. Chant does not need musical accompaniment. Have you not heard the chanting of the Gospel during the Papal Masses? The organ is silent. In fact, when the Exultet was chanted, there was no musical accompaniment either. The same principal applies to the chanting of the Eucharistic Prayer. There is no documentation permitting the playing of any kind of music. Redemptionis Sacramentum is very clear on that. In fact, it states explicitly that

there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent",132 except for the people’s acclamations that have been duly approved, as described below.

Furthermore, the GIRM does not indicate that musical instruments are allowed. While the GIRM does encourage the chanting of the Eucharistic Prayer, it does make any allowances for the playing of musical instruments. Therefore, no such provision exists.

 

[agapewolf]

Agapewolf, again, that is your intepretation. Chant does not need musical accompaniment. Have you not heard the chanting of the Gospel during the Papal Masses? The organ is silent. In fact, when the Exultet was chanted, there was no musical accompaniment either. The same principal applies to the chanting of the Eucharistic Prayer. There is no documentation permitting the playing of any kind of music. Redemptionis Sacramentum is very clear on that. In fact, it states explicitly that

Furthermore, the GIRM does not indicate that musical instruments are allowed. While the GIRM does encourage the chanting of the Eucharistic Prayer, it does make any allowances for the playing of musical instruments. Therefore, no such provision exists.

I’m not talking about chanting. I’m talking about actual musical settings.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m not talking about chanting. I’m talking about actual musical settings.

No musical instruments means no musical instruments. What part of that do you not understand? Just because Marty Haugen has a setting doesn’t make it right. In fact, he’s gotten things wrong, as have folks who compose for OCP. When Redemptionis Sacramentum says that the musical instruments should not be played during the Eucharistic Prayer, that means no accompanyment whatsoever.

 

[agapewolf]

No need to be snotty.

I’m not talking about Haugen’s version either. No need to TYPE me.

As I said earlier…many many many CLASSICAL masses have been composed and used for centuries… musical settings for the priest to sing…not just chant

It says it should not be played when it is PROCLAIMED…doesn’t mention anything about it being sung.

 

[benedictgal]

No need to be snotty.

I’m not talking about Haugen’s version either. No need to TYPE me.

As I said earlier…many many many CLASSICAL masses have been composed and used for centuries… musical settings for the priest to sing…not just chant

It says it should not be played when it is PROCLAIMED…doesn’t mention anything about it being sung.

No one’s being snotty, agapewolf; however, Haugen does have his own setting for the Eucharistic Prayer.

Now, what you indicated should not be meant to be taken that it musical accompanyment is allowed. That is a dangerous reading of it. If you read it that way, then you are inserting your own idiosyncracy into the picture and that is bad. No where in the GIRM does it say that musical accompanyment is allowed, even when references are made to the fact that the Eucharistic Prayer may be sung. Furthermore, what classical Mass settings have been used to incorporate the singing of the Eucharistic Prayer. In addition, when you start setting things to music, words are changed here and there. You cannot do that with the parts of the Mass, especially the Eucharistic Prayer. That is why it has its own notes in the Sacramentary.

 

[agapewolf]

[No one’s being snotty, agapewolf;

Ahh…yes you were, when you said this:

What part of that do you not understand? .

however, Haugen does have his own setting for the Eucharistic Prayer.

I didn’t say he didn’t. I just said I wasn’t talking about that setting.

In addition, when you start setting things to music, words are changed here and there. You cannot do that with the parts of the Mass, especially the Eucharistic Prayer. That is why it has its own notes in the Sacramentary.

I am NOT inserting my own anything into anything. It is a very practical application and understanding of this direction. The GIRM encourages the Eucharistic prayer to be sung (whether chanted, or another music setting).
The fact that it allows for instruments during the acclamations implicitly requires, by definition of necessity some sort of something to get the priest on key, to keep the through composed and seemless nature of the whole.

When you hear “all the angels and saints sing…” immediately we should be singing “holy holy”…not listening to a musical introduction, nor hearing a chord first. The only way this can happen is if the priest is on key to begin with. The only way that can happen is reference pitch. (unless the priest has perfect pitch). THe only way reference pitch can be maintained is with a reference point throughout.

I didn’t say words should be changed. You are adding different ideas here that have nothing to do with the argument, which doesn’t work. Words don’t need to be changed when putting the EUcharistic prayer to music. Just because some more current composers have done in the past doesn’t mean that all composers have.

It is waaaaay more distracting to hear a priest try to sing and change key constantly, or go flat throughout, and then come in with the acclamation in the correct key… than it is for a very soft chord support of his singing. I’m not talking about delayed or constant either. I’m talking about a reference pitch.

I know all the type “a’s” here freak out when someone says something having to do wtih the spirit of the law rather than the letter, but sometimes, you have to.

This isn’t “abuse” . this is very practical necessity if the priest is to sing a mass setting.

The GIRM requires many things of us that are impossible to fill if we don’t bend other lesser requirements. Its full of them. Enought to drive “type a’s” batty. (I use to be one…had to let it go). We have to look at the reasons for the laws to understand the purpose, so we can obey the intent and the heart of the instructions which is the reason for the rule in the first place.

And before someone goes off on me again about “adding my own thing” which I am not at all. This isn’t adding anything. This is simply encouraging study of the rules. -understanding the "Why"s. (Same with morality…study of the laws helps us to love and obey the laws).
[/quote]

 

[benedictgal]

I am NOT inserting my own anything into anything. It is a very practical application and understanding of this direction. The GIRM encourages the Eucharistic prayer to be sung (whether chanted, or another music setting).
The fact that it allows for instruments during the acclamations implicitly requires, by definition of necessity some sort of something to get the priest on key, to keep the through composed and seemless nature of the whole.

When you hear “all the angels and saints sing…” immediately we should be singing “holy holy”…not listening to a musical introduction, nor hearing a chord first. The only way this can happen is if the priest is on key to begin with. The only way that can happen is reference pitch. (unless the priest has perfect pitch). THe only way reference pitch can be maintained is with a reference point throughout.

I didn’t say words should be changed. You are adding different ideas here that have nothing to do with the argument, which doesn’t work. Words don’t need to be changed when putting the EUcharistic prayer to music. Just because some more current composers have done in the past doesn’t mean that all composers have.

It is waaaaay more distracting to hear a priest try to sing and change key constantly, or go flat throughout, and then come in with the acclamation in the correct key… than it is for a very soft chord support of his singing. I’m not talking about delayed or constant either. I’m talking about a reference pitch.

I know all the type “a’s” here freak out when someone says something having to do wtih the spirit of the law rather than the letter, but sometimes, you have to.

This isn’t “abuse” . this is very practical necessity if the priest is to sing a mass setting.

The GIRM requires many things of us that are impossible to fill if we don’t bend other lesser requirements. Its full of them. Enought to drive “type a’s” batty. (I use to be one…had to let it go). We have to look at the reasons for the laws to understand the purpose, so we can obey the intent and the heart of the instructions which is the reason for the rule in the first place.

And before someone goes off on me again about “adding my own thing” which I am not at all. This isn’t adding anything. This is simply encouraging study of the rules. -understanding the "Why"s. (Same with morality…study of the laws helps us to love and obey the laws).

Actually, all of this is based upon your interpretation of the GIRM, which may not necessarily be in line with what the Church has stated in Redemptionis Sacramentum. The Eucharistic Prayer is the most important prayer of the Mass. You can’t fool with it simply because you want to play your guitar and accompany the priest. Again, what part of no musical instrumental accompanyment for the EP do you not understand?

It is not being snotty at all to challenge you on this. You have not provided any documentation from Rome stating that this is allowed. Again, all you have stated is how agapewolf interprets this, which, is wrong. If the priest is to sing the Mass setting, why not follow what is already included in the Roman Missal to begin with? You certainly don’t need to be accompanied by musical instruments for that. Furthermore, have you not seen any of the Papal Masses? Even when Pope Benedict sang the Eucharistic Prayer, there was no musical accompanyment? Why, because it is not allowed? Even when he sings the Preface, there is no musical accompanyment.

 

[benedictgal]

Interestingly enough, doing a search on whether or not music was allowed during the Eucharistic Prayer turned up nothing. However, when I was looking for any citation, I found some Eucharistic Prayers set to music. These, though, were for the Anglicans. The strange thing is that there are no provisions for musical accompanyment in the Anglican versions. It’s all plainsong.

Oddly enough, their Eucharistic Prayer bears an eerie resemblance to our EP II.

 

[agapewolf]

Actually, all of this is based upon your interpretation of the GIRM, which may not necessarily be in line with what the Church has stated in Redemptionis Sacramentum. The Eucharistic Prayer is the most important prayer of the Mass. You can’t fool with it simply because you want to play your guitar and accompany the priest. Again, what part of no musical instrumental accompanyment for the EP do you not understand?

It is not being snotty at all to challenge you on this. You have not provided any documentation from Rome stating that this is allowed. Again, all you have stated is how agapewolf interprets this, which, is wrong. If the priest is to sing the Mass setting, why not follow what is already included in the Roman Missal to begin with? You certainly don’t need to be accompanied by musical instruments for that. Furthermore, have you not seen any of the Papal Masses? Even when Pope Benedict sang the Eucharistic Prayer, there was no musical accompanyment? Why, because it is not allowed? Even when he sings the Preface, there is no musical accompanyment.

The pope didn’t, because my guess what that he was chanting. (I didn’t see it) very very very different than a music setting of a mass. very different. There is no documentation about when the priest SINGS the Eucharistic prayer. There is about chanting, and proclaiming. Not singing. The fact that there are classical Masses written in support of the priest just might indicate that there is further understanding of it than what is written.

I am interpreting with the mind of the church - which is understanding the reason for the law. You haven’t really interpreted much, but to just read the black and apply to the white… the strictest understanding for no basic reasoning behind it. I just layed out VERY CLEARLY in my past post why a priest most certainly does need support in singing. I laid out very clearly the necessity, and all you said was “no it isn’t”

Now, about your manner of discussion. I feel I must say this publicly because the tone of this thread has really unfortunately hijacked some innocent questions, and I no longer want to do that.

There was snottiness. "because I want to play guitar? " Please. THe jab is very obvious here and does nothing about encouraging civil discussion. At mass, I play piano and organ, by the way. And it isn’t because I want to play it that I am supporting the priest. It is because it is a necessity. I would rather listen to him and concentrate more than play. Throwing that in there was insulting to me as a church musician. I want to serve, not be given glory. Anything implication other than that is insulting. stop it.

I don’t mind being challenged…I mind when you are snotty in the way you do it …again by saying “what don’t you understand about it”. You have used simple statements such as this before in other threads to me…keeping on one little tag line that you know is insulting to me, and keeping that in the forefront of the argument. It doesn’t help in discussion, really. Finding a button and pushing it is quite detracting from the argument at hand. I haven’t taken any jabs at you here B-gal. I really tried to have a good conversation, but I can’t continue like this.

This argument has gone to nuh uh, uh huh… and I won’t continue with the passive aggressive argument. You may choose to respond to get that last word… probably again saying “what don’t you understand” which will prove my point even further. If you must feel as if you’ve won an argument, go ahead I guess. However, nothing has been gained here. I just am walking away with a very bad taste in my mouth about the arguer, who no longer approaches anything I say with anything but conflict and offensive tones. Perhaps if you hadn’t put in jabs, but rather friendly conversation, perhaps in possibly just trying to understand why I say what I say, you might have somewhere, at some time taught me something.

Just something to think about for the future discussions you may have with someone else. Please reconsider the manner you have discussions with people that disagree with you. Best wishes, and I mean that.

 

[benedictgal]

The pope didn’t, because my guess what that he was chanting. (I didn’t see it) very very very different than a music setting of a mass. very different. There is no documentation about when the priest SINGS the Eucharistic prayer. There is about chanting, and proclaiming. Not singing. The fact that there are classical Masses written in support of the priest just might indicate that there is further understanding of it than what is written.

I am interpreting with the mind of the church - which is understanding the reason for the law. You haven’t really interpreted much, but to just read the black and apply to the white… the strictest understanding for no basic reasoning behind it. I just layed out VERY CLEARLY in my past post why a priest most certainly does need support in singing. I laid out very clearly the necessity, and all you said was “no it isn’t”

Now, about your manner of discussion. I feel I must say this publicly because the tone of this thread has really unfortunately hijacked some innocent questions, and I no longer want to do that.

There was snottiness. "because I want to play guitar? " Please. THe jab is very obvious here and does nothing about encouraging civil discussion. At mass, I play piano and organ, by the way. And it isn’t because I want to play it that I am supporting the priest. It is because it is a necessity. I would rather listen to him and concentrate more than play. Throwing that in there was insulting to me as a church musician. I want to serve, not be given glory. Anything implication other than that is insulting. stop it.

I don’t mind being challenged…I mind when you are snotty in the way you do it …again by saying “what don’t you understand about it”. You have used simple statements such as this before in other threads to me…keeping on one little tag line that you know is insulting to me, and keeping that in the forefront of the argument. It doesn’t help in discussion, really. Finding a button and pushing it is quite detracting from the argument at hand. I haven’t taken any jabs at you here B-gal. I really tried to have a good conversation, but I can’t continue like this.

This argument has gone to nuh uh, uh huh… and I won’t continue with the passive aggressive argument. You may choose to respond to get that last word… probably again saying “what don’t you understand” which will prove my point even further. If you must feel as if you’ve won an argument, go ahead I guess. However, nothing has been gained here. I just am walking away with a very bad taste in my mouth about the arguer, who no longer approaches anything I say with anything but conflict and offensive tones. Perhaps if you hadn’t put in jabs, but rather friendly conversation, perhaps in possibly just trying to understand why I say what I say, you might have somewhere, at some time taught me something.

Just something to think about for the future discussions you may have with someone else. Please reconsider the manner you have discussions with people that disagree with you. Best wishes, and I mean that.

Agapewolf, again, you are basing this on your own interpretation which is not, I submit to you, in line with what the Church states in Redemptionis Sacramentum. Loose interpretation alone is not suffice to justify your line of thinking. Even though you are musician, that doesn not give you the right, nor does it give other musicians the right, to mitigate and liberalize the GIRM to interpret something that it does not mean. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to the Eucharistic Prayer, things are black and white. Way too many gray things, shadows, if you will, have been happening to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. That is why Redemptionis Sacramentum and Sacramentum Caritatis came into being. Over-zealous creative types who have taken it upon themselves to interpret things as they think they should be done, rather than how the Church wants them to be done are the culpable party here.

You want things to be gray and without absolutes; but, it cannot and should not be that way with the Eucharistic Prayer. There is already a chant setting in the Roman Missal, and a very good one, at that. Why re-invent the wheel because you think that you can do better? The Pope, in chanting the EP, is leading by example. If you notice, there was also musical accompanyment for the chanting of the Passion. There was also no musical accompanyment for the chanting of the Exultet. It sounded magnificent.

You have not given anything to substantiate your points. All of this is your interpretation. Nothing in the GIRM, let alone Redemptionis Sacramentum, allows for the playing of musical instruments during the Eucharistic Prayer, nothing.

You take things rather personally, as has been indicated in threads where you and I have sparred. Believe it or not, I have agreed with you a few things. However, when it comes to the Eucharistic Prayer, there aren’t gray areas. The OP was disturbed about the singing of the EP. I gave the factual information directly from the documents. You interjected your own opinion and interpretation without providing any documentation to support your notion. In fact, even the Anglicans don’t have any notations for musical instrumentation during their chanting of their own Eucharistic Prayer. I am not one to borrow a page from Protestant ecclesial communities, but, even they seem to recognize that it is something that you just don’t do. Now, I brought up Marty Haugen because I heard his piece played during Mass at San Fernando Cathedral. It did nothing to the Eucharistic Prayer. In fact, it reduced it to a mere hymn. If anything, Haugen should not be allowed to fool with our liturgical prayers. He’s made a mess of things as it is. So have Bob Hurd and Christopher Walker.

 

[Phemie]

You take things rather personally, as has been indicated in threads where you and I have sparred. Believe it or not, I have agreed with you a few things. However, when it comes to the Eucharistic Prayer, there aren’t gray areas. The OP was disturbed about the singing of the EP. I gave the factual information directly from the documents. You interjected your own opinion and interpretation without providing any documentation to support your notion. In fact, even the Anglicans don’t have any notations for musical instrumentation during their chanting of their own Eucharistic Prayer. I am not one to borrow a page from Protestant ecclesial communities, but, even they seem to recognize that it is something that you just don’t do. Now, I brought up Marty Haugen because I heard his piece played during Mass at San Fernando Cathedral. It did nothing to the Eucharistic Prayer. In fact, it reduced it to a mere hymn. If anything, Haugen should not be allowed to fool with our liturgical prayers. He’s made a mess of things as it is. So have Bob Hurd and Christopher Walker.

The GIRM is in fact clear on the topic and took into consideration those who would argue that ‘proclaim’ means speak.

1. In texts that are to be spoken in a loud and clear voice, whether by the priest or the deacon, or by the lector, or by all, the tone of voice should correspond to the genre of the text itself, that is, depending upon whether it is a reading, a prayer, a commentary, an acclamation, or a sung text; the tone should also be suited to the form of celebration and to the solemnity of the gathering. Consideration should also be given to the idiom of different languages and the culture of different peoples.

In the rubrics and in the norms that follow, words such as “say” and “proclaim” are to be understood of both singing and reciting, according to the principles just stated above.

 

[Joannm]

IOW, there shouldn’t have been any water in the fonts when they arrived for the Vigil, water only went into the fonts after the last Mass today.

Do you have any documentation on this? We usually put the water back in the stoops after the Vigil, although we forgot this year and didn’t get it back until after the 9:00 Mass.

 

[Phemie]

Do you have any documentation on this? We usually put the water back in the stoops after the Vigil, although we forgot this year and didn’t get it back until after the 9:00 Mass.

My reference was the Canadian ORDO in the notes for Holy Thursday “Holy water is removed from the fonts at the church doors and replaced only after the final Mass of Easter Sunday with its renewal of baptismal promises.” P. 172 #16.

Interestingly, Paschale Solemnitatis is silent on the topic of removing holy water from the fonts on Holy Thursday, speaking only of putting water that was blessed at the Vigil in the fonts on Easter Sunday.

 

[japhy]

When you hear “all the angels and saints sing…” immediately we should be singing “holy holy”…not listening to a musical introduction, nor hearing a chord first. The only way this can happen is if the priest is on key to begin with. The only way that can happen is reference pitch. (unless the priest has perfect pitch). THe only way reference pitch can be maintained is with a reference point throughout.

To my knowledge, Mass settings do not include the prayers of the priest; there are only two or three ways or “tones” (that I know of) to chant most of the priest’s prayers. The Roman Missal provides these. The praying of the Eucharistic Prayer (whether spoken or sung) is to be done without instrumental assistance as the GIRM and other documents make clear.

As for maintaining the proper key throughout, the priest doesn’t need to have “perfect pitch”, but needs to know his starting note (which he can do through simple practice and exercise) and needs to be relatively competent at chanting/singing.

As for the transition between the priest singing and the congregational singing, the choir is of great importance here. The priest and/or choir used to intone the various ordinaries of the Mass (the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei) and the congregation, if it joined, followed. So as the priest sang the end of the preface to the Eucharistic Prayer (again, which would only be one of a few tones, and not dependent on the Mass setting – unless it was a really particular setting) then the choir would begin the Sanctus (on the right note, because that’s their job) and the congregation would join in.

 

[benedictgal]

The GIRM is in fact clear on the topic and took into consideration those who would argue that ‘proclaim’ means speak.

Thank you, Phemie and Japhy, for clarifying this. This helps a lot.