C
Church_Militant
Guest
I suppose we’d have to take that up with King David since he was a musician and we see notes included along with the text for singing and accompaniment.
- Status
J
jcrichton
Guest
…actually, the OP is on an apologetic stance so we do not know what the questioner’s goals/aims are.
Yet, you are correct Believers must humbly engage one another (the Call is that we show, through our Love, that Christ is our Lord and Master and that He in deed Came into the world!) in an effort to unite; just from reading your post I began to feel an assault taking place… but before I responded I reread the post–turns out you were offering an anecdotal inference where you defended the Belief of the Catholic… one the first take I was too quick and began to fear a guised tackle (fencing is a forced habit).
Still, unity is a two-way path; we must come to accord as a matter of course but we must tread carefully so as not to give up just to seem reconciled and amicable… as Jesus stated: the Truth will set us Free!
Maran atha!
Angel
F
Faith1960
Guest
Perhaps, but I still prefer not only that but all the Mass said rather than sung, minus the hymns.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi!
:clapping::clapping::clapping:
…are you sure you’re not Catholic?
This is exactly the Though of the Church; we, Catholics, are not Taught to diminish Scriptures but that Apostolic Tradition goes along with Scriptures and the Church to form the three columns of our Faith:
Maran atha!
Angel
po18guy
Well-known member
I have learned that, first and foremost, it is the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. It is therefore filled with awe and worship, repentance and contrition. The solemnity must be maintained actively, as our fallen human nature desires noise and entertainment.
“Worship services” are nowhere in scripture, but what else can you call it when you have tossed the Holy Eucharist in the dumpster?
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
We must remember that the first Catholic assemblies did not have Bibles, mainly because the Christian Bible had not been written yet! They gathered to study the apostles teachings and to hear Old Testament scriptures read. Later, when Christian written scriptures came into being, Catholics were able to hear the memoirs of the apostles read to them as well. Read to them since individuals didn’t have their own copies of scripture, and certainly there weren’t enough precious copies to lay out for each person to pick up individually. That was how the Christians gained access to scripture, by hearing it read orally. Scripture was an oral experience, and experienced in a group setting, with other Christians at the same time. (Not like a non-Christian reading a Gideon bible in a motel room.)
In that sense, the Catholic Church is not a “bible church,” because it is based directly on the teaching of the apostles, not founded centuries later on the written residue of the apostles.
The Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible.
In that sense, the Catholic Church is not a “bible church,” because it is based directly on the teaching of the apostles, not founded centuries later on the written residue of the apostles.
The Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible.
M
Mintaka
Guest
Re: proclamation of Bible readings –
Um, guys, the default way to solemnly read the Bible out loud at Mass is to chant it.
This is true in synagogues today. This was always true in the Catholic Church until after Vatican II (except in some “progressive” parishes). And Muslims chant their Quran readings even today, because they wanted to do what the Jews and Christians did (in an attempt to show that their book was just as holy as the Bible). There are similar chant traditions for most world religions that have some kind of to-them-sacred writings.
So no, it’s not more holy or expressive to read the responsorial psalm than to sing it. The setting of a specific psalm may be more conducive to holiness or less so. The same may be true of the psalmist who sings it. But that’s it.
St. Isidore of Seville’s book “De Ecclesiasticis Officiis” has some extremely helpful sections on the duties of the lectors, the psalmist, and the choir. He also discusses some of the reasons why music is more effective specifically in sung psalms, because “souls may be moved more easily” with “more fervor to the flame of piety, when sung than when not sung… all our affections are more stirred when sung by a sweet and accomplished voice.”
The section on lectors talks a lot about how a lector should be someone who knows the Bible well. They should be able to read a sentence so that its meaning is easy to understand, and be able to change their manner of reading for the genre, with their voice indicating sorrow, scolding, exhortation, and so on. (Although he was in Spain, and they didn’t mind a little more emotion in their church.)
The voice of the lector should be simple and clear, not too low or high. There should be no movement of the body, but only “the appearance of seriousness. The lector ought to pay attention to the ears and the heart, not the eyes; lest he make it more important that we be spectators of him rather than hearers.”
Likewise, a psalmist will be a singer and lector who is “very clear and illustrious in voice and skill, so that he may incite the souls of his hearers by the delight of sweetness.” His voice should not be harsh, but “melodious, sweet, liquid,” and well-enunciated. He will sing with “a sound and melody fitting for sacred religion: not one that exclaims in a tragedian’s style but one that demonstrates a Christian simplicity” in its sound; and “not one that is redolent of musical gesture or a theatrical style, but one that produces greater compunction* in its hearers.”
But anyway… the point is that the default way to do readings is to chant them, and that’s what all those funny little marks in the lectionary book are there for. Lay readers could chant the readings too; it’s in current liturgical law. It’s just that nobody teaches us to do it, and even most priests don’t learn it in seminary now. Nothing like dumping thousands of years of tradition in a single generation, right?
Um, guys, the default way to solemnly read the Bible out loud at Mass is to chant it.
This is true in synagogues today. This was always true in the Catholic Church until after Vatican II (except in some “progressive” parishes). And Muslims chant their Quran readings even today, because they wanted to do what the Jews and Christians did (in an attempt to show that their book was just as holy as the Bible). There are similar chant traditions for most world religions that have some kind of to-them-sacred writings.
So no, it’s not more holy or expressive to read the responsorial psalm than to sing it. The setting of a specific psalm may be more conducive to holiness or less so. The same may be true of the psalmist who sings it. But that’s it.
St. Isidore of Seville’s book “De Ecclesiasticis Officiis” has some extremely helpful sections on the duties of the lectors, the psalmist, and the choir. He also discusses some of the reasons why music is more effective specifically in sung psalms, because “souls may be moved more easily” with “more fervor to the flame of piety, when sung than when not sung… all our affections are more stirred when sung by a sweet and accomplished voice.”
The section on lectors talks a lot about how a lector should be someone who knows the Bible well. They should be able to read a sentence so that its meaning is easy to understand, and be able to change their manner of reading for the genre, with their voice indicating sorrow, scolding, exhortation, and so on. (Although he was in Spain, and they didn’t mind a little more emotion in their church.)
The voice of the lector should be simple and clear, not too low or high. There should be no movement of the body, but only “the appearance of seriousness. The lector ought to pay attention to the ears and the heart, not the eyes; lest he make it more important that we be spectators of him rather than hearers.”
Likewise, a psalmist will be a singer and lector who is “very clear and illustrious in voice and skill, so that he may incite the souls of his hearers by the delight of sweetness.” His voice should not be harsh, but “melodious, sweet, liquid,” and well-enunciated. He will sing with “a sound and melody fitting for sacred religion: not one that exclaims in a tragedian’s style but one that demonstrates a Christian simplicity” in its sound; and “not one that is redolent of musical gesture or a theatrical style, but one that produces greater compunction* in its hearers.”
- In the sense of “pricks of conscience, remorse.”
But anyway… the point is that the default way to do readings is to chant them, and that’s what all those funny little marks in the lectionary book are there for. Lay readers could chant the readings too; it’s in current liturgical law. It’s just that nobody teaches us to do it, and even most priests don’t learn it in seminary now. Nothing like dumping thousands of years of tradition in a single generation, right?
I was once asked this from a friend while we were touring a cathedral.
My simple response…
Look around you. You are surrounded by it.
Not only is the Mass in there, but nearly every word.
And the icons everywhere reflect various biblical scenes and teachings.
There was not a direction you could look where some deeper biblical meaning was not.
Why isn’t there a bible? Because it makes a grander appearance then just a dusty book in the pew.
You walk into its pages when you walk in the door.
My simple response…
Look around you. You are surrounded by it.
Not only is the Mass in there, but nearly every word.
And the icons everywhere reflect various biblical scenes and teachings.
There was not a direction you could look where some deeper biblical meaning was not.
Why isn’t there a bible? Because it makes a grander appearance then just a dusty book in the pew.
You walk into its pages when you walk in the door.
H
hu324b
Guest
Your free to bring your bible anytime and read along - no one will kick you out.
We have a missal that covers the service bible readings for that day so a bible is not required for the congregation - you can read months in advance of what part of the bible and the passages that will be covered daily in the Catholic Church - so once again this is a huge exaggeration / actually its a lie that Catholics have to live with.
We do this to ourselves by not explaining properly
Example - most Catholics will identify themselves a Catholic when asked if they are Christian and this confuses them - just tell them you are a Christian.
We have a missal that covers the service bible readings for that day so a bible is not required for the congregation - you can read months in advance of what part of the bible and the passages that will be covered daily in the Catholic Church - so once again this is a huge exaggeration / actually its a lie that Catholics have to live with.
We do this to ourselves by not explaining properly
Example - most Catholics will identify themselves a Catholic when asked if they are Christian and this confuses them - just tell them you are a Christian.
J
jcrichton
Guest
…actually, that would also confuse them; further, it would sound to them as though Catholics are afraid to be associated with the Catholic Church–remember as a kid going to a restaurant? …or passing by a Church, grotto or a Crucifix/Cross? Today, people look the other way so as to not be accountable for the old tradition of genuflecting and signing the Cross–prayer before a meal? …forget about it!
Catholics jumped the gun on the issue of expressing one’s religion in public (wonder how we’re doing in private practice).
Maran atha!
Angel
Maran atha!
Angel
It’s actually quite easy to chant. Lectors only need know two general tones: one for Old Testament, Acts of the Apostles and Revelation; the other for New Testament Epistles. The Gospel has its own tone but only priests and deacons need worry about that.
H
hadulzo
Guest
Sola Scriptura folks should know better. Them having a bible in their church souds like a …tradition…on their part. Speaking of scripture. “WHO EVER HAS EARS LET THEM HEAR”. Then of course our Jewish brothers dont tote their half of scripture to syngogue. They have the blessed Torah.
P
phil19034
Guest
Is there a website or YouTube pages where one could listen to those two chant tones?
M
Markie_Boy
Guest
I bring my own Bible to mass. I agree that I don’t want to show up and “borrow” one. I like to check out more than just the reading, as it often is not a full picture - but this needs to be done before mass, not during.
As a new convert, I have to say the group here at Catholic Answers is not typical of what I see at mass on Sunday. Most of my fellow parish attenders don’t seem to read the Bible much, and there is not much conversation to be had on it at church gatherings.
I think bringing a Bible is part of who I am. I go to God’s word as I know it’s right and I am often wrong.
As a new convert, I have to say the group here at Catholic Answers is not typical of what I see at mass on Sunday. Most of my fellow parish attenders don’t seem to read the Bible much, and there is not much conversation to be had on it at church gatherings.
I think bringing a Bible is part of who I am. I go to God’s word as I know it’s right and I am often wrong.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
I am a Catholic Christian
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
My daughter had to observe a church service different from her own for a class assignment. We chose a non-denominational church some friends attended. I asked ahead of time if it would be considered rude if she took notes. I was told no, that note-taking was actually encouraged. Afterward I asked my daughter how it went and she informed me–with some distress in her voice–that they didn’t pray during their service. At all. It was essentially a class with some hymns thrown in.
The good thing about it was that she very much appreciated the Mass afterward!
T
Tomyris
Guest
Perhaps it WAS essentially a class with some hymns thrown in. I have been to some lousy services. Pblech!! It is also possible she missed cultural clues: maybe they sang their prayers, and the ‘stuff’ someone said had a meaning she totally missed. Someone from an intense charismatic service might go to Mass and report back that they didn’t worship and it was the deadest thing they had ever been to. Or maybe she found their worst service. She might try a liturgical service, such as a Lutheran service or Anglican, where it would be more familiar. But then the assignment is over.
Where I go, there are prayers led by the minister, and at the end we pray the Lord’s prayer. Every week.
I would be curious to hear a Catholic’s perspective on visiting a Lutheran service, and what stood out to them as different.
D
Deconi
Guest
There was a time when we read the Bible alternately with the Priest or Reader, similar to what some Protestant churches still do.
In so far as taking Bibles or having them during Mass, there’s no need when you should be listening to the Word, and all Catholics are actually able to ‘measure’ or assess what n-Cs say a Scripture passage means just by what we have HEARD during Mass.
The Mass itself is living or participating in the pages of Holy Writ from beginning to end!
For any visitor or enquirer, I’d advised taking a pencil and paper…and begin your note taking from the moment you approach the building, blessing / cleansing yourself upon entrance, genuflecting and ‘direction thereof’, participating and noting EVERY part, word, prayer, recital and action you participate in until you bless yourself upon exit at the end of Mass.
Then go home and literally study your Bible to find where EACH part of the Mass and what you’ve just participated in is found in reference and/or literally being accepted and done as INSTRUCTED by Holy Writ.
Understand that this (research) may take a month!..if you’re an ardent Bible person and shorter if you’re advanced in Holy Writ knowledge. Clue: It encompasses the Old Testament and New Testament.
For myself (only) I don’t need my Bible at Mass, because I ‘see’ the passages unfolding before me and WITH ME in it during Mass and I understand what I am participating in.
In so far as taking Bibles or having them during Mass, there’s no need when you should be listening to the Word, and all Catholics are actually able to ‘measure’ or assess what n-Cs say a Scripture passage means just by what we have HEARD during Mass.
The Mass itself is living or participating in the pages of Holy Writ from beginning to end!
For any visitor or enquirer, I’d advised taking a pencil and paper…and begin your note taking from the moment you approach the building, blessing / cleansing yourself upon entrance, genuflecting and ‘direction thereof’, participating and noting EVERY part, word, prayer, recital and action you participate in until you bless yourself upon exit at the end of Mass.
Then go home and literally study your Bible to find where EACH part of the Mass and what you’ve just participated in is found in reference and/or literally being accepted and done as INSTRUCTED by Holy Writ.
Understand that this (research) may take a month!..if you’re an ardent Bible person and shorter if you’re advanced in Holy Writ knowledge. Clue: It encompasses the Old Testament and New Testament.
For myself (only) I don’t need my Bible at Mass, because I ‘see’ the passages unfolding before me and WITH ME in it during Mass and I understand what I am participating in.
P
PRmerger
Guest
J
JOE_OBERR
Guest
The main reason Protestant churches have bibles in their churches is because they believe it is the source of their faith. Unfortunately the masses have been misled as the real source of their faith is the theology of the Catholic priest Martin Luther and others of his era (Calvin, Henry VIII, etc.). Christianity was never based or founded on one’s personal guesswork on bible verses, though it may be to some extent today due to Luther’s influence.
So while the Protestants might have bibles in their church they have extreme difficulty in interpreting it as they have rejected the oral word of God which Jesus taught the Apostles and which has been handed down for 2,000 years as the Catholic faith. This oral word of God is the Gospel which the Popes have never erred in transmitting through the ages (Vat I). The Gospel we always hear and talk about is actually the Catholic faith in its entirety.
A written summary of it can be found in the Roman Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The teachings in both are true and without error as the basics come directly from Jesus, i.e., the creed, sacraments, commandments and prayer. Since it is a living word, not a dead letter, doctrine develops as new and different situations arise which require the Pope to teach the application of the Gospel in the new situation, e.g., the evil of birth control or of socialism and other forms of collectivism practiced by governments.
The bible’s canon was not decided upon by the Pope until about 390AD. So obviously the oral word of God is more important as it predates the written word of God by about 360 years. Thousands upon thousands of Catholics died and were martyred without ever having the slightest idea as to what the bible would finally look like in the 390’s. The bible is used to nourish and support the oral word of God which only the Catholic faith possesses as it is the Catholic faith. Part of that nourishment are the Mass readings which comprise most of the bible over the three year cycle.
The priest in his Sunday preaching should be explaining the Catholic faith as Jesus gave us this faith for our happiness here and now and as a final reward, for those that repent, in eternity.
This is a long-winded way of saying the oral word of God, which should come from the priest’s mouth on Sunday, is what is most important as Jesus commanded the Apostles on Assumption Thursday to do what He had been doing for three years - preaching, “… go out into all the world and preach the Gospel (the Catholic faith) to the whole creation…”. And since nowhere does the bible explain or define this Gospel, it must be found elsewhere, that elsewhere being the magisterium of the Church headed by the Pope and the few bishops in union with him. Scripture’s role is to nourish and support this oral Gospel
- Status