Whenever we have a fully chant-polyphonic mass at St Basil's, UST, we insist on having the homily sung to the tonus homilius. This is a particularly versatile tone which may take on the speech characteristics of whoever is using it. Most priests are singularly at ease with this tone, which is far less demanding than even the tonus Adamus.

In all seriousness, I suspect that in past times those who needed to preach to large congregations in large churches (or even out of doors) were skilled in delivery and, perhaps, not unfamiliar with the methods of the ancient rhetorical and grammar schools of the Romans. In classical oratory there was a wide variety of vocal inflections, vocal tone, exaggerated and colourful body language, and so forth, which were employed to reach great crowds or intimate ones. Also, it is known (and is evident from surviving architecture) that many public buildings, churches, monasteries, and cathedrals were designed specifically to be 'sound chambers'. In such buildings sound carried to the farthest reaches when delivered by a trained orator (a species of person now almost extinct) who knew how to project a great variety of tone and reach people emotionally with all the skills at the rhetor's disposal. (I believe that these talents and methods were stock-in-trade for our early cantors and the development of our chant.) Too, when speaking out of doors, a particular terraine was often sought out. A concave hillside, for instance, or some other geographical configuration which would serve as a sound chamber. We see this method formally adapted architecturally in the Greek and Roman ampitheatres

At St Basil's, which is Houston's most exquisite sacred acoustical space (it seats roughly 200 folk) no PA system is needed - but one was installed because certain kinds of people (they're everywhere, aren't they) gruntled that they couldn't hear what couldn't possibly not have been heard. This is what I call 'psychological deafness', which cannot discern the un-aided human voice because it is so dependent upon a 'PA sound' that that is all it can assimilate. These are the same people who, even though the readings are read through a microphone still have to sit there with their faces in the mass leaflet reading what the lector is proclaiming aided by a microphone! The readings should never be printed in service folders or mass leaflets, etc. This whole notion subverts what liturgy is about and the frame of mind that attentive and active people are intended to cultivate at liturgy.

This is a very interesting question. The answer may well be that a certain sort of now-extinct speech song was what was used. We can but conjecture. It would be sooo nice, though, wouldn't it?, if modern speakers and homilists were skilled in oratory and could do something besides mumble into a microphone, knowing that the PA system will do what they can't.

We're lucky in our parish of roughly 300 seats to very rarely use the PA system. The only time it gets used is from the ambo, and that's mainly because we haven't gotten out of the habit of turning it on before Mass.

I believe the norm was to keep preaching and Mass separate, as a rule. While almost all priests were allowed to say Mass publicly, not all priests were allowed to preach publicly.

That 'soundboard' over the pulpit is called a tester.

St. Ephraim?

On the first Sunday of May we had a power outage during our early morning Mass. On Pentecost Sunday our PA system went on the fritz (turns out both were problems with our city electric company, as was our AC going out the following Saturday while it was 95 degrees outside). One of our resident priests is rather soft-spoken but we had very little trouble hearing him in our 400-seat church. It forced our readers to have to properly project and enunciate. And my psalmist on Pentecost just happened to be trained in opera. I had a number of people even tell me they thought things sounded better without microphones. It goes to show that not even the best PA systems hold a candle to good natural acoustics.

I believe the norm was to keep preaching and Mass separate, as a rule

It really depends on when and where you're talking about. In the patristic era preaching seemed to occur at the Eucharistic liturgy pretty much where it does now--after the readings (Augustine in his sermons will often refer to a scriptural passage "which you have just heard"). But in the Middle Ages you are correct that preaching most often took place outside of Mass, either once it was concluded or as a "stand alone" event in the afternoon.

As to style of delivery, I've always suspected that the speeches and sermons of MLK give us some idea of how Augustine or Chrysostom might have preached. King's preaching seems to me a sort of elevated speech that is not quite song, but is moving in that direction. Actually, not unlike rap. Now there's a thought: the Church Fathers rapping their sermons (if you read Augustine's sermons in Latin you see that they are full of alliteration and rhyme).

I truly with that microphones and speakers would be removed from large and resonant churches: they do the opposite of what they're supposed to: they garble the sound-ound-ound of the preacher-eacher-er-er.

I have heard acoustic preaching - it's usually easier to understand, better, shorter, and usually less chummy.

My priest jokes about chant, but he did tell me that is wasn't allowed according to the missal.

My church is lazy, we rely crazily on microphones, so it was really nice when we had a little pilgrimage to a small church with no microphones, and I was cantor, so I got the full feeling of it. The one thing that irritates me most is that the praise band type groups use individual mics rather than a choir mic. It sounds way too overpowering.

You can't hear the choir if there is a cantor, but my director insists on it, so we have no choice. Also, the congregation doesn't sing without one, so we really can't eliminate it.

Not to say that the deacon is incorrect, but we know that liturgically in Augustine’s time that they were not reading 1 Jn at Easter, so his homilies on that epistle were delivered separately from the Mass, in the evening.

My parish moved the pulpit into the sanctuary behind the rail, from the middle of the nave. Worst mistake ever from my standpoint as an MC and from the perspective of preaching.

This can bring up another question: have homilies become too informal? If they were super formal, chanting would be easy, and it would sound very appropriate.

What, pray, is a 'stained glass voice'!?
If it's anything like a certain Greek who had a 'silver tongue' it ought to be delightful.

About the informality. It is my own supposition that the general air of informality in homiletics, preaching, and liturgy in general lies in the reality that far too many priests, deacons, musicians and people all are really embarrassed and ill at ease with the profound gravity of what the mass is really all about. It isn't the communal memorial meal that many seem to be more comfortable with. It isn't the chatty tete a tete that so many clerics seem only to be comfortable with. It isn't the everyday popular styled music that makes everyone feel at home. The mass is an encounter with the divine, a deeply sacred ritual act, and it begs for the finest of the human emotion, intellect, artistry, and behavior that homo sapiens is capable of and was created for. The modern American is distinctly ill at ease with any semblance of profundity, and so, must muss it up, throw in an amusing and 'relaxing' air to put people at ease with an Ed Sullivan show style of getting the medicine down their throats. Americans are very ill at ease with genuine solemnitas, which, really, is ritual festivitas expressed with all the gorgeous glory of arts, music and rhetorical homiletics, and ritual dignity in prayer that are at one's command.

When we go to mass we are as one with the Greeks, who came saying 'sir, we would see Jesus'. Far to often what we see is either a clown or a variety show host who is embarrassed to death that he should communicate the Divine, the Numinous, the dazzling beauty of God's Sacraments and his Truth, and celebrate the profound miracle to which he was ordained with all fitting solemnitas. Too many just aren't up to it.

As many will know, I have no particular affinity for the EF. With the Ordinariate I am blessed with the finest on offer from EF, NO, BCPs and then some. However, I do very much appreciate the EF for the best that many put into it. I believe that one reason that many have apoplexy at the thought of it is that it embodies all the positive traits that I spoke of in the paragraphs above, and rejects all the unfortunate ones that I spoke of above. It's really more religion, and taken far more seriously, than the average American, Catholic or not, desires or is comfortable with.

For balance, though, there are those partisans of the EF who earn every bit of the bad press it gets because of their spiritual snobbery and pride. But, fear not: partisans of the NO can be in their way just as snotty and proudful of the pretended humbleness of their lax praxis.

My guess, MJO, is that it would be something akin to the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOsYN---eGk

yes is the answer, but not all priests or even most priests did this historically, but the tradition does exist and it is good to be aware of it. there are notated homilies foun in a few ancient manuscripts.