The reason for this is that, as Musicam Sacram (The Instruction on Music in the Sacred Liturgy) states, "Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when it is celebrated in song, with the ministers of each degree fulfilling their ministry and the people participating in it (Paragraph 5)." As discussed in the previous post on this, I have described my interpretation of the people's participation. However, I do wish to clarify that while I don't believe the people necessarily need to sing everything, they should have some vocal participation. This would be primarily in the responses to the Priest's Prayers and the simple responses, as Musicam Sacram says (Paragraph 16).
There is another important principle, which Musicam Sacram defines - the hierarchy of the parts which can be sung. The document states:
"29. The following belong to the first degree: / (a) In the entrance rites: the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the prayer. / (b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the acclamations at the Gospel. / (c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: the prayer over the offerings; the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus; the final doxology of the Canon, the Lord's prayer with its introduction and embolism; the Pax Domini; the prayer after the Communion; the formulas of dismissal.
"30. The following belong to the second degree: / (a) the Kyrie, Gloria and Agnus Dei; / (b) the Creed; / (c) the prayer of the faithful.
"31. The following belong to the third degree: / (a) the songs at the Entrance and Communion processions; / (b) the songs after the Lesson or Epistle; / (c) the Alleluia before the Gospel; / (d) the song at the Offertory; / (e) the readings of Sacred Scripture, unless it seems more suitable to proclaim them without singing."
I feel it also necessary to note that the "songs" the doucument speaks of aren't hymns, but the chants found in the Graduale. Though it also states, "The custom legitimately in use in certain places and widely confirmed by indults, of substituting other songs for the songs given in the Graduale for the Entrance, Offertory and Communion, can be retained according to the judgment of the competent territorial authority (Paragraph 32)." So, hymns are of course fine, though I would give preference to the chants of the Graduale.
The part I find striking about this, and which has been often pointed out to me, is that we seem to have gotten the entire order backwards, at least in the States. In most places, at least in my experience, the four hymns are given the most precedence, followed by the Alleluia, the Mysterium Fidei and final doxology of the Canon, the Sanctus and Agnus Dei, the Gloria, the Responsorial Psalm, the three proper prayers, the preface, the Lord's Prayer, and then everything else (all in that order).
The reason for this, I believe, is that melodies are more readily available for the parts more commonly sung, and the people are more easily able to participate in them by the lack of musical knowledge they may possess. While I admit, as does Musicam Sacram in Paragraph 9, that the ability of the people must be taken into account, I still hold that we should respect the hierarchy of the parts of the Mass as well as possible.
Now, I do believe there is some leeway and practical application needs to be taken into consideration. In my opinion, nothing sounds worse than the Gloria and Alleluia being spoken. Their nature as songs just demands they be sung. Thus, it seems that the argument could be made their dignity is lost if they are not sung, whereas the Collect will still maintain dignity when recited clearly and devoutly.
The problem that I'm more interested in addressing is, as stated above, that the priests and deacons don't sing. An essential part of training in the seminary should be, and often is, trying to give them enough musical knowledge to at least give a basic chant. Not only is it good for the prayers to be chanted for the reasons mentioned by Musciam Sacram, but I would also hold that a practical and necessary reason is that it decreases the possiblity of rushing through the Liturgy. It's much harder to rush through chant than through speaking.
I wish to elaborate futher though on why singing carries a certain dignity. First and foremost I would hold that music is a way of embodying the feelings of the heart, a main reason in why we love to listen to certain forms of music for various activities. Many have a workout CD, which evokes emotions of determination and perseverance, as just one example. Chant, however, is a way of embodying those emotions in a way which lifts up the mind to Heaven. This is not because chant is necessarily the music of Heaven, but because it is a higher form of speaking, in a sense.
Even when not chanted, the prayers and parts of the Mass, should be spoken clearly and distinctly. Chant accomplishes this, because it's rather hard to mumble, and as I said plainchant is very much a higher form of speaking. It also carries a certain dignity of its own.
This is the reason I often say that even when the priest struggles to chant, it carries a certain dignity that speaking doesn't, simply because by its nature it says, "This is of importance." And this brings me to the ultimate reason for the priest and deacon chanting. Their parts of the Mass are the most important. The priest is the one who makes the Mass happen or not happen. While the participation of the faithful is of the utmost importance, their lack of participation will not invalidate the Mass.
It is the priest who leads us and speaks on our behalf, in persona Christi, to the Father in Heaven. We join with the hosts of Heaven in praising God, but it is given to the priest to, "daily go from men to God to offer Him their homage and petitions; to return from God to men to bring them His pardon and hope (Jean-Baptiste Henri Lacordaire, O.P., Thou Art A Priest Forever).
No comments:
Post a Comment