Quilisma,

Do you mean that the celebrant and the congregation sit during the singing of the Ordinary CHANT of the Gloria and Credo? That does strike me as odd.

Yes, indeed.
After the celebrant intones the Gloria, he pauses a while at the altar and then moves to his chair and sits down. The congregation follow suit - well, most of them. There are a few that resist and the choir stays standing, but they are up in the choir loft.

Maybe he actually waits until having finished "reciting" the rest of the Gloria in a low voice, and then moves. I will ask him next time I have a chance.

But #524 "In choro non sedent qui actu cantant, ..."

If the reform had only gone so far as to make the priest stand for a couple of minutes here and there....

I shall have to observe for a few weeks, with special attention to this, now that you (all) have drawn my attention to it in a new way.

@a_f_hawkins

In the EF rubrics you need to watch out as there are two types of choir, those that are singing and those that are in (sitting) in choir. The modern books also make this distinction (see Fortesque).

CatherineS has the same experience as do I.

By the way, does sitting or kneeling deprive someone of the ability to sing? I did not know that!

From the general rubrics of the 1962 Missal:

524. In the choir those who are actually singing do not sit, but the rest may sit:
a) when the celebrant is sitting;
b) while the lessons and the epistle, the gradual, the tract and the Alleluia with its verse, and the sequence are being sung;
c) from the offertory until the incensing of the choir or, if the choir is not incensed, until the preface;
d) from the end of the communion until the Dominus vobiscum before the postcommunion.
At other times they stand, genuflect or kneel, as above.

Choir here refers to the liturgical choir in the sanctuary or choir stalls, not necessarily the schola cantorum that actually sings (although the two may be identical in some circumstances). There are no general rubrics legislating the posture of the congregation; it depends on local custom. Sitting during the Gloria and Credo certainly goes back to a time when there was no congregational singing. It is equally correct for the congregation to stand where that is customary if there is congregational singing. It makes little sense for them to stand throughout a polyphonic Gloria or Credo or even a chanted one that they don't actually sing. I believe it is also possible, but not recommended, for the celebrant to recite the Gloria and Credo very slowly so that he doesn't sit at all. I have been to one TLM where the celebrant sang the Credo along with the congregation throughout. That practice is not envisioned by the rubrics, which direct the celebrant to say the rest of the Gloria and Credo quietly at High Mass.

The congregation may also remain standing for the Sanctus and Agnus Dei, again if it's customary. At the beginning of Mass, do they stand as soon as the priest ascends the steps of the altar, or wait until the intonation of the Gloria? Custom varies, sometimes even from one church to another in the same city.

Not to hijack the thread, but has anyone else encountered singing the Salve Regina as part of the Leonine Prayers after Low Mass?

Same here, which I think is not uncommon, but my question is about chanting the Salve instead of saying the "Hail Holy Queen." I've known of one FSSP priest who did that after Low Mass and I found it peculiar. I'm wondering if it's perhaps more prevalent than I suspected.

encountered singing the Salve Regina as part of the Leonine Prayers after Low Mass?

I think once or twice (so very rare) what is more common is the additional singing of the Salve Regina or Regina Caeli (Eastertide) after Low Mass.

maybe this is only a modernist complaint driven by rationalist arguments


Yes.

dad29,

I suppose that taken strictly by itself, the "complaint" I made could be seen as small, petty thing that has no great relevance. However, especially in our modern liturgical climate - partially brought on by the Novus Ordo itself and how it is carried out, but also already pre-dating the introduction of the Novus Ordo and all 60s changes - it seems to me quite relevant. If one is going to claim (which I am not saying you would claim, but many do, even among those who realize the value in and the superiority of the Tridentine Mass) that it is good for the lay people to "participate" by way of listening to the texts of the Mass and following along with the priest, then it would seem logical to conclude that it is less than ideal for any of the texts that are meant to be heard by the congregation (or even said/sung by them) to be obscured in any way, which is precisely the problem with kneeling right at the beginning of the Sanctus, when as a result, as I mentioned, the first half of it (depending on whether the priest is blazing through the text or not) is drowned out.

If you are saying that my complaint is modernist/rationalist in the sense that it is modernist/rationalist for the congregation to be paying exact attention to or directly participating in the texts of the Mass exactly as they are being said, then so be it - I suppose that is a whole separate argument which I, for one, think is a good argument to have.

Kneelers are normally down only when used in my experience. Saves them from being stepped on, which they are not designed for.... YMMV.

I like to call the sound of kneelers hitting the floor "Catholic Thunder". Especially when you are in the lower church beneath.....

I've never encountered this thunder of kneelers!! In most of the churches where I assist (mostly non-EF, but still), the kneelers don't go up and down (if they did at one time they are now rusted/broken/frozen in the down position). People kneel and stand without making notable noise. And people also prop their feet on them, kids stand on them, etc. of course.

In a few churches I've been to where they do go up and down, one uses ones foot to snag the kneeler, gently supporting its trajectory so that it doesn't crash down, and puts it back up again after. There's often very little room between rows of pews (which are not fixed to the floor), so if the kneeler stays down you can hardly stand or walk in and out.

Since we are detouring, can I ask who is in a parish where people go out for Communion row by row, and who has the 'everybody just get up and work your way to the front on your own' style of Communion?

People get up and join the two lines in the center aisle. In front, persons at the head of the lines receive then go back using side aisles. Those who choose to receive kneeling kneel at the rail and wait until the priest is free. The choir has gotten too old to go down for communion so someone comes upstairs, usually a deacon or the associate. We have kneelers and it is possible to bang them on the floor, but most people don't. Fairly orderly, actually.

"Ermmm," well, it may seem that way, but I am certainly not saying that people haven't participated in something if they haven't heard it; furthermore, I am most certainly not a supporter of the vernacular/vulgar language in the liturgy.

I guess all I am getting at is that I am not commenting about PIP not hearing just any text. For example, the silent Canon is, well, silent and meant to be, and thus is not something I am "concerned" with. However, the Sanctus is prescribed to be said out loud; although I am well aware that for various reasons, and in various circumstances, spoken texts of the priest will not be heard well, it seems that there is a *reason* that some texts are prescribed to be said out loud. I.e. it seems that by virtue of them being prescribed to he said out loud, in an audible voice, the Church is telling us to listen.

It is along these lines that I mean to argue, not "make everything understandable (as if that is possible...) and in the vernacular." I would not argue one is not "participating" if one does not hear a text that is meant to be heard; only that it is better to hear it than to not hear it. There is of course the consideration that there are many circumstances in which some texts just can't be heard (i.e. back of a big church, etc); and of course as long as one is uniting oneself to the Holy Sacrifice and is internally "participating" to the best of his ability, then yeah, for PIP it does not have to be of primary importance to hear and/or understand texts. However, if we consider the fact that the fullness/completeness of the Roman Rite is the Solemn High Mass, when all those things meant to be heard are more readily heard by means of being sung (whether by priest/deacon/subdeacon or especially by choir), it seems logical to conclude that although the ideal is not (and cannot, often these days) met all the time, there are still ideals for which one must strive if it is possible.

To my mind, you're pushing the envelope right off the table, but hey! This is all theoretical anyway.

"...abstains from Holy Communion....."

I remember seeing passionate articles in Homiletic & Pastoral Review BEGGING that the old 12-hour fast be re-instated rather than the practice of today which (frankly) encourages sacrilege.

Nobody cares....

I remember the 12-hour fast. People would actually pass out. It was impossible to have masses later in the day because few could hold out that long. Also, it was based on a faulty understanding of digestion and how long food actually stays in the stomach. Getting into extremes like this seems more like the Pharisees who didn't understand that the Sabbath and religion are made for man, not the reverse that Jesus condemned. At best faulty science, at worst Medieval extremism.

at worst Medieval extremism

Surely, extremism in the defense of virtue...….

Getting back to the original question, the priest sits during the singing of the Gloria and Credo in the EF. The Credo and Gloria have already been said by the priest. This singing of these is given to the choir as an extra devotion for the people to listen to.
The idea of people singing these at all during the Catholic Mass is recent at least since before Carolingian times, and derives from the idea of "modern man" who has to be an extrovert, constantly spewing verbiage out of the mouth that developed at the turn towards the 20th century in the business world. To get anywhere in society, even today, you need to be such a noisy extrovert.
There is no reason why people cannot sing quietly in their hearts along with the choir and thereby actively participate in the song as was done for centuries. But like so many perversions of the liturgical movement (LM) (I am now reading influential works by Lambert Beauduin the founder of the LM, available at the Internet Archives) to be active is to be such a noisy extrovert. It is amazing how the LM was so successful in convincing popes and other intellectuals of these disciplinary matters in liturgy.

The Credo and Gloria have already been said by the priest. This singing of these is given to the choir as an extra devotion for the people to listen to.

NO!!! The sung Gloria is the actual Gloria of the Mass; it is not just a sort of devotional entertainment for the congregation. It is the recited Gloria of the celebrant that is the duplication, not the other way around—a Low Mass practice assimilated into High Mass and later codified. Same for the Creed.

The fast was from midnight to whenever Mass occurred

Yes, thanks for the correction. It was 12 hours only if you attended the 11:00 AM Mass.

Charles,

In the modern era, with the modern rite, in a language at least some of the congregation calls a vernacular, and music which is designed to entertain...… why do a small fraction of the people even who attend Mass accept what the Church teaches?

The Trads are setting themselves up for another backlash that may even be worse next time. YMMV

You mad bro?

zombies participating silently in the pews

And this does't apply equally to the novus ordo? I mean the reality, not the ideal. Some of us find beauty and meaning in the silent canon, music so difficult only a choir can sing it, and lengthy (i.e. more than 15 minutes before the beginning of Mass) fasts before communion. To each his own, I suppose. I second dad29's point about the numbers. It's a demonstrable fact that the new rite was imposed from above, not at all in response to the desires of a majority of the faithful. It went "nearly extinct" because it was forbidden and suppressed and people were made to think they would go to hell for supporting "renegade" priests who continued to offer it—not because people weren't participating. I don't think sitting for part of the Gloria or Credo is going to endanger the future of the TLM. It has survived much worse.