Pope Benedict On Music And The Liturgy

[Papist]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306875467' post='2248322']
"[b]In order to stir the hearts of the faithful and convey the importance of the Gospel itself[/b], the greeting, the announcement of the reading, the concluding acclamation and [b]even the entire Gospel may be sung[/b]." --[url="http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/innews/042000.shtml"]Introduction to the Book of the Gospels[/url]
[/quote]
Maybe sung, not must be sung. Define 'sung'. Catchy tune, hip-hip style, country style or whatever you want? I am not opposed to chanting per se, but I have a hard time with making the readings, particularly the Gospels hard to understand, much less to comprehend.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1306875503' post='2248323']
OK. That's wonderful. By why read it again during the homily?
[/quote]

Why be so against it? What does it really matter if it is proclaimed twice? Is is so awful to hear the word of the Lord more than once at Mass?

A good answer is that people forget, their minds wonder, they may have missed it the first time because of a child or any other reason. And that the Homily is suppose to be based upon the readings, and reading them again would perhaps help the Priest to stay on track. Often I've heard homilies that have little or nothing to do with the readings. At least reading them again during the homily would remind everyone what the homily is about.

But again what's the big deal? Time really isn't an issue, the defects of our brothers is not something we should be focusing on anyway. Don't see the big deal this may be just a case of the internet making a big deal out of nothing.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1306875066' post='2248311']
I've explained this already. The Liturgy of the Word is an act of worship primarily, and the homily is for the benefit of the faithful primarily- different functions. Therefore the chanting of the Gospel can be considered preferable during the Liturgy of the Word, as it is more suited for formal worship, and a simple vernacular recitation is much preferable in the homily, where it is now intended to be understood primarily by the congregation.
It's not about whether 'The Gospel' should be chanted or spoken. It's about whether the Liturgy of the Word should be chanted, and I think it should, as I explained above. However, the homily is not at all the same as the Liturgy of the Word.
[/quote]
The homily is part of the Liturgy of the Word.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306875254' post='2248315']
"[b]In order to stir the hearts of the faithful and convey the importance of the Gospel itself[/b], the greeting, the announcement of the reading, the concluding acclamation and [b]even the entire Gospel may be sung[/b]." --[url="http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/innews/042000.shtml"]Introduction to the Book of the Gospels[/url]
[/quote]
OK. That's wonderful. But why read it again during the homily?

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306875371' post='2248316']
I guess it could also seem 'weird', and one could argue that its more redundant to have Missals being read by the faithful when the Mass is already in the vernacular. But I don't have a problem with either.
[/quote]
I think it's more weird to have two Gospel readings in the same mass. I don't think it's in the rubrics.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1306875066' post='2248311']
The Traditional Latin Mass is much, much shorter...and the lesson usually isn't dragged out to include all the fluffiness of the NO readings....
[/quote]
Now the Bible is fluffy. Great. Reeeaaallly makes me want to go to a Traditional Latin Mass.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1306875914' post='2248329']
Maybe sung, not must be sung. [/quote]

I never said that when the readings are proclaimed that each [u]must[/u] be sung.


[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1306875914' post='2248329']Define 'sung'. Catchy tune, hip-hip style, country style or whatever you want? I am not opposed to chanting per se, but I have a hard time with making the readings, particularly the Gospels hard to understand, much less to comprehend.
[/quote]

According to the rules in the [url="http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/music/gregorian-chant/choir/liber-usualis-1961.html"][i]Liber Usualis[/i][/url]

And here are [url="http://www.ccwatershed.org/pdfs/how-chant-readings-english-catholic-mass/download/"][i]Examples (written out) of the different tones for chanting[/i] (PDF)[/url] for the OF Mass. (source: http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2011/may/2/singing-readings-mass/)

[dUSt]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306876023' post='2248332']
Why be so against it? What does it really matter if it is proclaimed twice? Is is so awful to hear the word of the Lord more than once at Mass?

A good answer is that people forget, their minds wonder, they may have missed it the first time because of a child or any other reason. And that the Homily is suppose to be based upon the readings, and reading them again would perhaps help the Priest to stay on track. Often I've heard homilies that have little or nothing to do with the readings. At least reading them again during the homily would remind everyone what the homily is about.

But again what's the big deal? Time really isn't an issue, the defects of our brothers is not something we should be focusing on anyway. Don't see the big deal this may be just a case of the internet making a big deal out of nothing.
[/quote]
The big deal is that you're adding another Gospel reading to the mass. It's not in the rubrics. I thought you were against adding stuff to the mass if it's not in the rubrics.

[Papist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1306875066' post='2248311']
I've explained this already. The Liturgy of the Word is an act of worship primarily, and the homily is for the benefit of the faithful primarily- different functions. Therefore the chanting of the Gospel can be considered preferable during the Liturgy of the Word, as it is more suited for formal worship, and a simple vernacular recitation is much preferable in the homily, where it is now intended to be understood primarily by the congregation.
It's not about whether 'The Gospel' should be chanted or spoken. It's about whether the Liturgy of the Word should be chanted, and I think it should, as I explained above. However, the homily is not at all the same as the Liturgy of the Word.

Also, moving backwards a bit (to the amount of time in the Liturgy of the Word), a very helpful friend of mine said the following to me:

In your discussion about chanting v. not chanting. And the length etc....with regard to music...think about this...In the NO there are two readings and an elongated psalm which is call and response. That adds a ton of time. In the Traditional Latin Mass, there is one lesson, then there is a gradual/tract and gospel. The time is infinitely shorter. So, even with the chanting in Latin first, which is the actual proclamation of the readings, it is still shorter to have the re-reading in English following. BTW, there is no absolute that the readings have to be done in English....

So, to sum this up quickly:

Novus Ordo: 1st reading/repsonsorial psalm/2nd reading/alleluia/gospel.

Traditional Latin Mass: lesson/gradual/alleuia (tract)/gospel

The Traditional Latin Mass is much, much shorter...and the lesson usually isn't dragged out to include all the fluffiness of the NO readings....
[/quote]

[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]By no means I am not opposed to chanting. I think chant is the best form tone/melody. However, I have a hard time with making the readings, particularly the Gospels hard to understand, much less to comprehend. Having the readings read after they are chanted is an admission of that. I would prefer one or the other, not both. If chanted, I would make a more concentrated effort to read the scripture readings before mass.[/size][/font][/color]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1306876027' post='2248333']
I think it's more weird to have two Gospel readings in the same mass. I don't think it's in the rubrics.
[/quote]

I don't think either is weird. I think it's weird to judge that it's weird. Because I believe that The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy from Vatican II allowed for it but I think this discussion is absurd and pointless. But show me were in the Rubrics the Priest cannot repeat the readings as part of the Homily. Being that the Homily is to be based on the readings I fail to see why you are so against it.

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1306876502' post='2248337']
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="4"]By no means I am not opposed to chanting. I think chant is the best form tone/melody. However, I have a hard time with making the readings, particularly the Gospels hard to understand, much less to comprehend. Having the readings read after they are chanted is an admission of that. I would prefer one or the other, not both. If chanted, I would make a more concentrated effort to read the scripture readings before mass.[/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]

There is the Missal. You can read along.

[Papist]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306876266' post='2248335']
I never said that when the readings are proclaimed that each [u]must[/u] be sung.
[/quote]
So you are saying the readings being sung is your personal preference. I can understand and respect that.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Papist

[dUSt]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306876659' post='2248338']
But show me were in the Rubrics the Priest cannot repeat the readings as part of the Homily. Being that the Homily is to be based on the readings I fail to see why you are so against it.
[/quote]
I didn't say a priest is not allowed to read back the Gospel as part of his homily. It is not required though. If you are advocating the Gospel be chanted in Latin, and keeping the English reading of the Gospel as an "option for the priest", then what you are really only guaranteeing is that the Gospel will be delivered in Latin. So, in all practicality, you are advocating that the congregation understanding the Gospel reading is not all that important.

[Papist]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306876659' post='2248338']
There is the Missal. You can read along.
[/quote]
Don't you mean chant along? Having a 4 year old, 2 year old and a newborn, there's no certainty I can hold a missal, which is why I read the readings before mass.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1306876703' post='2248341']
So you are saying the readings being sung is your personal preference. I can understand and respect that.
[/quote]

Nope. I'm stating along with the Church that in order to stir the hearts of the faithful and convey the importance of the Gospel itself... the entire Gospel may be sung. It seems your opposition to the Gospel being sung is based on your personal preference. I do respect you.

[dUSt]

It would make more sense to simply have the Gospel reading consist of chanting it in Latin and then reading it in English immediately following. THEN say, "the Gospel of the Lord." And then the homily.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1306876930' post='2248344']
Don't you mean chant along? Having a 4 year old, 2 year old and a newborn, there's no certainty I can hold a missal, which is why I read the readings before mass.
[/quote]

The Mass is beyond understanding. The Mass to be prayed, and the mystery of the Mass transcends our understanding. You will receive the same grace attending Mass as anyone else who either read allow with the Missal or not.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1306875193' post='2248314']
The Gospel is the high point in the Liturgy of the Word. After the Gospel is read, we reply, directly to Jesus, "Praise to You Lord Jesus Christ." Yet, we should then hear it again, after that, just so we can understand what we just responded to? I don't know. Seems weird.
[/quote]
It seems weird to you because you are thinking about the Liturgy of the Word as directed towards the congregation, instead of directed towards God as an act of worship.

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1306875914' post='2248329']
Maybe sung, not must be sung. Define 'sung'. Catchy tune, hip-hip style, country style or whatever you want? I am not opposed to chanting per se, but I have a hard time with making the readings, particularly the Gospels hard to understand, much less to comprehend.
[/quote]
Sung in the style of sacred music. Music during Mass is to be judged based upon how closely it conforms to the principles of Gregorian Chant, as said Pope St. Pius X.

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1306876027' post='2248333']
The homily is part of the Liturgy of the Word.


OK. That's wonderful. But why read it again during the homily?


I think it's more weird to have two Gospel readings in the same mass. I don't think it's in the rubrics.
[/quote]
There is nothing wrong or improper about chanting the readings in Latin first, then re-reading in the vernacular during the homily. The Liturgy of the Word is directed towards the formal worship of God, therefore chant is quite proper. The homily is directed towards the benefit of the congregation, and therefore it is eminently proper that the readings are explained to them. If the readings previously were chanted in Latin, it only makes sense to recite them in English first, so that everyone is 'on the same page'.

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1306876502' post='2248337']
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]By no means I am not opposed to chanting. I think chant is the best form tone/melody. However, I have a hard time with making the readings, particularly the Gospels hard to understand, much less to comprehend. Having the readings read after they are chanted is an admission of that. I would prefer one or the other, not both. If chanted, I would make a more concentrated effort to read the scripture readings before mass.[/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]
As I said before, you're understanding the Liturgy of the Word as being oriented around and towards the congregation, instead of towards God. It is first an act of worship. Also, making an effort to read the Scripture of the day before Mass would be a very praiseworthy practice.
Again, the Gospel is proclaimed by the priest in his function as an alter Christus, on our behalf, towards God as an act of worship. That is why in the usus antiquior, the priest is facing the altar/tabernacle/crucifix, not the congregation, though he does face the congregation at parts that are directed to them (Dominus vobiscum/Oremus, the homily).



Again, from my helpful friend:



When one is talking about "the readings" at Mass, one has to understand a couple of things...

1. The focus in the NO is completely different than that in the Traditional Latin Mass. The NO considers the Liturgy of the Word to be on an equal footing as the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Not so in the Traditional Latin Mass. While the proclamation of the Gospel is indeed important, there is a reason why the Catechumens were made to leave at the offertory in the Traditional Latin Mass, in the early days.

2. The singing of the Lessons....in the Traditional Latin Mass, the primary means of hearing the lessons was to hear them chanted. This is all that is required. There is no mandate that there should be a reading of the lessons in the vernacular. It is a fairly recent innovation, as it were. However, when it was introduced, it was introduced outside of the Mass itself, during the homily/sermon. Also, it was not mandatory that a priest read the vernacular. Often times a subdeacon or a cleric/layman sitting in choir was called upon to do so. The proclamation of the Gospel had already been sung by the priest. The NO has a completely different mentality with regard to this as well. The NO assumes that the reading will be done in the vernacular only. Also, there is now an option either sing or say the lessons. The requirement to sing them became nil.

3. As for singing the lessons, it is far more desirable, for several reasons... a. It allows for proper worship during the Mass of the Catechumens; b. it allows for ample time to reflect upon and internalize the fact that the priest is proclaming a piece of Scripture on our Behalf to God. Again, worship; c. it opens the door to having the lesson brought to us in a more beautiful way, ie. singing v. reciting.

4. With the advent of the Novus Ordo, the restructuring of the Mass of the Catechumens into the Liturgy of the Word took away the worshiping aspect of the lessons. We now were to engage the lesson as opposed to worship. It became a matter of presenting participatio activa over participatio actuosa. To go through the motions as opposed to internalizing the action itself. The Scripture is first to be worshiped. It is second to be internalized. It is third to be understood, from a linguistic point of view. These roles have been absolutely reversed.

There is more, but the basic understanding of why we have the readings is not first to linguistically understand them, but to worship. It matters not that they are in Latin. The act of worship is first a matter of participatio actuosa. The participatio activa happens during the homily, when that form of active participation should be applied.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1306877297' post='2248348']
It would make more sense to simply have the Gospel reading consist of chanting it in Latin and then reading it in English immediately following. THEN say, "the Gospel of the Lord." And then the homily.
[/quote]
Are you implying that you know better how the Mass should work than the Church does, as expressed in the organic development of the older form of the Roman Mass?
I'm sure you're not, of course, but we must be clear.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Nihil Obstat