At my parish we don't announce anything. That is what the "Order of Worship" is there for, and it seems to work well. It works the same for Masses at which the Cantor sings, as well as at the Solemn Mass when the choir leads the congregational singing (no cantor). Everyone knows when they have to sing, and those not singing are in any case the ones that won't sing no matter what music is chosen. One of my pet peeves are these multiple announcements by cantors, and cantors singing over microphones.

Wonderful that you guys are reducing the intrusions during Mass. I think a simple welcome at the beginning like you've suggested should suffice.

Announce nothing: say only the words explicitly required in the Missal/Sacramentary.
All else is an intrusion on the Mass.

Nothing is announced at our masses, either. There is a board in front with 4-inch-high numbers that all can see. I grumble about the thing every time I have to change numbers, but it serves its purpose. I would rather list music in the bulletin, but seem to be the only one who wants to do that. The previous DM used to like to make last minute changes - impossible to do in the bulletin - so the board became a fixture that's now been there for years.

Mr. Osborn has put it so well! Hymns may not be the "music of the Mass", but they can work quite well. But one needs to 1) like hymnody, and 2) have a good grasp of its depth, breadth, and especially history. Not all hymns are of strictly "Catholic" origin, nor are all the translations of those that are ancient Catholic. But many great hymns ARE of Catholic origin. The problem is that they are NOT included in our contemporary Catholic hymnal, either hardbound or newsprint! It takes time and study to find both the Catholic hymns, and those of "protestant" origin that are still suitable for our use. Understanding the Psalter, the Propers which use them so heavily, AND hymnody is the key - and will enrich anyone who decides to pursue such understanding.

N.B. During my 16 years at Our Lady of Walsingham, I kept a very informal tally of hymns used. With "The Hymnal 1940" as our base, we used 300+ of the 600+ hymns therein over the course of the three-year cycle. We also had "Hymns III" (a supplemental hymnal to the 1940), The Collegeville hymnal, and many other hymns from my collection of hymnals. We had both a hymn-board at the front of church and worship aids. We also sang the Psalm and Alleluya verses, the entire congregation, to Anglican chant at every Mass. Often the Schola Cantorum would chant an English Proper as well, and the Ordinary was in either Latin or English, changing seasonally and with the Feast Day being celebrated. Nothing was ever announced!

When I had to announce, I would keep it simple as well: "The Entrance hymn: Number 123, Title, number one-two-three" At my last church, when there was a Latin text sung and no bulletin was available, my boss would have me recite the text before it was sung. I always hated having to do that, but it served its purpose. If anything, the issue of announcing was incentive for me to use more of the propers!

I've been reading the article, 'History, Reform, and Continuity in the Hymns of the Roman Breviary,' in Sacred Music, Spring 2009. It's a long article but found very informative. I recommand it for the people who cherish Catholic hymns. It seems to be that if the local parishes restore 'Liturgy of the Hours," at least one or two on daily, or even weekly bases, we could sing more hymns in proper places in the liturgy, which are intended to be used according to the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
That way we don't need to debate whether hymns should be sung at the liturgy, but it will encourage musicians to search for better hymns and don't need to feel guilty of doing '4 sandwich hymns.' I think hymns should be sung in the right place following our tradition, so hymns can preserve the true beauty and regain the dignity.
When the VII talks about the congregation's active singing (i guess it means including vocal singing) of the parts pertaining to them in Mass, do they intend to promote singng hymns in Mass? I think 'Reponses' and "Ordinary parts' seemed to be sufficiant for the congregation to sing and focus during mass. According to the article, Pope Paul VI announced the formation of the commision to reform the Breviarium Romanum. "Since Sacrosantum Concilium seemed to presume that hymns would remain as structural elements in the reformed OFFICE, group seven, whose responsibility it was to restore and enlarge the repertoire of hymns for the OFFICE." It seems clear that VII never intended to replace Propers with hymns, but wanted to keep the hymns in the office and use them more widely that way.
It seems that some started to mix two different liturgies (probably with a good intention), and led Catholics into confusions, which counsil Fathers never intended. Maybe those so called 'Catholic intellectuals;' including scholars, local priests, catechists, who don't value and understand the traditions of Catholic Church (including reforms in the Church history), should not interpret the Church documents such as Vatican II the way they want and do their own things. It is truly damaging the souls of the faithful.

I'm a newbie to the CMAA forum and am having my eyes opened in so many ways, thanks to the many thought-provoking discussions here!

When my family moved and joined our current small rural parish about 5 years ago, the parish was undergoing staff turnaround; the new priest & new music director brought traditional hymnody and organ to a congregation that was used to guitar and piano synthesizer (a la Glory & Praise etc). The music director perceived that the congregation didn't sing; his hope was if the choir was in the choir loft and the cantor was up front doing traditional hymns, the congregation would be surrounded with sound and would find it easier to sing the hymns (since in our rural area people apparently don't like to sing if they think they'll be heard!). But in my mind there's always been the tension of what Mr. Page articulated: that a cantor's actions could be interpreted as "directing and narrating the liturgy" or "mediating worshippers' approach" to the Mass. What's the right balance? Our congregation has given much positive feedback about the cantoring, and it's clear that when the hymn is new to them, they appreciate the cantor giving them confidence.

In the last year, our pastor has encouraged the choir to do more polyphony and to bring back the Latin propers and a Latin ordinary. We're meeting this week to discussing cantoring specifically and how to place the role of the cantor in obedience to the Church. I'm scouring this Forum and assembling notes from the GIRM and Sing to the Lord and other sources to guide us. If anyone has put together any sort of cantor training documentation that articulates an obedient, unobtrusive, humble, and appropriate role for the cantor, I'd be very eager to see it.

Joan Carey

There is, of course, no rubrical nor ritual foundation for a cantor to 'announce' anything. A cantor is one who practices the cantillation of Holy Writ and his scholarship and duties begin and end there. He, or she, is not a congregational music director, a congregational guide through the liturgy, nor an informer of what liturgical day it is and what parish one is at, etc., as if one were so daft that he, or she, did not know. Most cantors I have heard are not worthy to be called cantors - they do not at all even begin to stand in the scholarly and sacred tradition of historical cantorship.

Joan said "In the last year, our pastor has encouraged the choir to do more polyphony and to bring back the Latin propers and a Latin ordinary"

This is wonderful. You can emphasize choir singing Propers (at least Introits and Communio to start) and teach the congregation their 'Responses" (starting with the first degree.) When there is no choir, the cantor can sing the Propers and help the congregation singing the "Reponses'

This is the definition of 'Cantor' from Modern Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, S.J.

The chief singer of an ecclesiastical choir, who leads the singing and often selects the music. In the Divine Office the cantor intones the antiphones and starts the psalms. he is also called the precentor.

I wonder who changed the role of the cantor in our Mass? Are we trying to imitate Protestant services in which Hymn singing is a basic element? (it's so part of their services, they don't even need a songleader) We are trying so hard to have the congregation sing the hymns which are not part of the Mass, and even by introducing song leaders, who are not psalmist or cantors. Maybe people who don't want to sing hymns they do so, because they feel awkward and don't feel right doing it during Mass? We have Mass, Sacrament of Eucharist, which we receive though the Church not by individuals. Maybe we should stop trying to change Mass look like a protestant service.

Announcements: not part of the ritual, and thus should be completely suppressed
Gestures: vulgar; assume that the congregation is stupid; not specified in the ritual; should be completely suppressed
Microphones: antithetical to sung prayer; a singer who cannot be reasonably heard without one is not qualified to lead vocally; should be completely suppressed
Position: should not in any way take attention away from celebrant, ambo, and altar

One may not be able to effect all this changes immediately, but to argue that they are impossible or not entirely necessary would be to compromise the dignity and authority of the Mass.

I know this is somewhat redundant to some of the previous rejoinders, ala, 'Cantors are to announce nothing or virtually nothing.'

But -- that said -- this idea of "welcoming" people to what should be understood to be akin to one's own home is just silly. This is, silly as it is, almost ubiquitous, and almost never pointed towards or specific to visitors.

My pet peeve on the topic of announcements from cantors is "Good morning/evening/whatever" followed by a pause for everyone to chorus the greeting back.

Of course, this can made worse by the celebrant doing the same thing on his arrival. But even the first one is totally out of place. If we could teach cantors to STOP doing this, it would be one notch up the "dignified worship" ladder. (And that's not easy to do. In one church, I gave them a script and they all added "Good morning and welcome to St. ____, as though the worshippers might be in the wrong church.)

We have all been instructed by Pastor to say at beginning- :Welcome to ......." This is followed immediately by announcement of Entrance Hymn., but not time for Cong. to respond with their own 'Good morning' No matter what the ideal is, I am stuck with this. :(
Donna

We had a session of cantor training in our parish yesterday, and it's apparent that most of what the cantors are doing is based on personal preference, habit, and random suggestions from various people over previous decades.

A discussion regarding bowing as we approach the ambo highlighted this very well for me, including "I asked the lady who schedules Eucharistic Ministers...", "A past priest asked me what we should be doing!", and so on.

Here's what we need: A very simple guide, including video, which shows what we should be doing and WHY. If there's some logic behind it, people will see it as more authoritative. The last training video I saw recommended that the cantor make a graceful motion (1 or 2 handed!) to invite the congregation to sing their part. Our DM is now treating that as the model, because it seemed authoritative.

It will be very hard to create, because even in this small forum we see such a wide range of opinions. But if we had a training guide which was reasonably thought through and reviewed by some solid Liturgical Experts, that might be incredibly useful.

One of the most beautiful RP singing I heard was the one in the Papal Mass at the Yankee Stadium. He sang so beautifully and clearly, but not overdone. His expression was full of joy and faith, but controlled. His gesture is, of course, big, because of the size of the congregation in the huge place. But it was very touching. (I only wish the Psalm was longer.) I believe he gives cantor/Psalmist workshop. Here is the link, if you are interested in watching him. I even sent a thank you email to him and to the composer. They were very happy to hear it.

http://www.uspapalvisit.org/video_audio.htm

Charles, I believe the commentator was more popular in France. I saw it mentioned in a biography of Langlais I read.

The role of commentator, whether one thinks it a good idea or not, is defined in GIRM para. 105:

105. The following also exercise a liturgical function:

1. The sacristan, who carefully arranges the liturgical books, the vestments, and other things necessary in the celebration of Mass.
2. The commentator, who provides the faithful, when appropriate, with brief explanations and commentaries with the purpose of introducing them to the celebration and preparing them to understand it better. The commentator's remarks must be meticulously prepared and clear though brief. In performing this function the commentator stands in an appropriate place facing the faithful, but not at the ambo.
3. Those who take up the collection in the church.
4. Those who, in some places, meet the faithful at the church entrance, lead them to appropriate places, and direct processions.

That role isn't for announcements, but for liturgical explanations or directions. However, the GIRM does allow for announcements ("if they are necessary"), and specifies a place for them, after the post-communion prayer; that is, before the priest's final greeting and blessing. (para. 90).

---

I was surprised to learn a few months ago that the role of the commentator was invented before the reforms of the 1960s. The 1958 De musica sacra describes the commentator at paragraph 96:

The Commentator
96. The active participation of the faithful can be more easily brought about with the help of a commentator, especially in holy Mass, and in some of the more complex liturgical ceremonies. At suitable times he should briefly explain the rites themselves, and the prayers of the priest and ministers; he should also direct the external participation of the congregation, that is, their responses, prayers, and singing. Such a commentator may be used if the following rules are observed:


a) The role of commentator should properly be carried out by a priest or at least a cleric. If none is available, a layman of good Christian character, and well instructed in his duties may fill the role. Women, however, may never act as commentator; in case of necessity, a woman would be permitted only to lead the prayers, and singing of the congregation.
b) If the commentator is a priest or a cleric, he should wear a surplice, and stand in the sanctuary or near the Communion rail, or at the lectern or pulpit. If he is a layman, he should stand in a convenient place in front of the congregation, but not in the sanctuary or in the pulpit.
c) The explanations and directions to be given by the commentator should be prepared in writing; they should be brief, clear, and to the point; they should be spoken at a suitable time, and in a moderate tone of voice; they should never interfere with the prayers of the priest who is celebrating. In short, they should be a real help, and not a hindrance to the devotion of the congregation.
d) In directing the prayers of the congregation, the commentator should recall the prescriptions given above in paragraph 14c.
e) In those places where the Holy See has permitted the reading of the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular after the Latin text has been chanted, the commentator may not substitute for the celebrant, deacon, or subdeacon in reading them.
f) The commentator should follow the celebrant closely, and so accompany the sacred action that it is not delayed or interrupted, and the entire ceremony carried out with harmony, dignity, and devotion.

What exactly did the commentators say? "And now Father is saying the canon"?

Again, DBP has 'hit the mark'.
Whether it is from a 'commentator' or a misguided cantor, or anyone else, the insertion of non-ritual words into the liturgy is a loathsome intrusion on the very prayer, conscience, and understanding participation that it purportedly would enhance. The faithful are not idiots who don't know what is going on at mass. And, though there is, it now appears, some legal sanction for such 'commentary', such legality does nothing to alter its distraction and repugnance to the mind and spirit attentive to the realities that are unfolding with a wonderfully inviolable rhythm in the liturgy. (There are places where one even gets the impression that the liturgy itself is thought of as sort of an embarassment which has to be 'brought down to earth', or de-sacralised, to be made palatable to the audience.)

All this began in the 1970s. One of the first issues of Pastoral Music has a big feature on the need for and glory of the worship facilitator or ringmaster or something like that.

The only time I feel like I'm listening to a commentator is during some papal Masses, where the English-language feed provides a play-by-play.

This "and now we'll have...." also turns up at wedding ceremonies and Masses. While a brief announcement might be useful (especially in mixed marriages), it can deteriorate into emcee-ing by the celebrant, reminiscent of the Academy Awards.

As an aside to this discusion, here is a snippet from this evening's reading. I offer it without agenda; only as interesting history of our topic at hand.

In the IV. century an (unnamed) ecclesiastical council declared that 'No others are to sing in church, except the official cantors, who ascend the ambo and sing from a parchment'. This parchment had by the VIII. century evolved into a complete book, the cantatorium, from which the cantor sang the solo verses of the gradual, tract, and alleluya. By the X. century this book was received as a badge of office upon his ordination as cantor. The book typically had ivory covers and parchment pages coloured purple and inscribed with letters of gold and silver. Since the cantor sang from memory (and such cantatoria had, at any rate, no musical notation), his cantatorium, like his cantor's staff, was strictly a symbol of his office.

Source:
Re-Envisioning Past Musical Cultures:
Ethnomusicology in the Study of Gregorian Chant
Peter Jeffery
University of Chicago
1992
ISBN: 0-226-39580-4

(An invaluable study which I commend to all on this Forum)

DBP -
I do agree with your assertions, even though I tend somewhat, but not slavishly, to an antiquarian bias. But not all things antiquarian: I believe strongly, for instance, that there are a number of historical Western rites that are superior to the Tridentine; not only ritually, but in vesture as well - I abhor seeing people vested in yards of tacky, effeminate lace, and think that, of all styles of chasubles, the fiddle back is the utter worst, a literal, piteous, vestige of a garment.

As for cutting off the quote before mention of microphones and arm gestures: I started to add that of course these cantors had no microphones and made no arm gestures, nor did little pirouettes, but decided to leave my remarks off. Of course they would not have needed a $50.000 PA system because they had acoustics, and, knew how to sing.

"I abhor people vested in yards of tacky, effeminate lace, and think that, of all styles of chasubles, the fiddle back is the utter worst, a literal vestige of a garment."

I second that, and cannot speak my joy at seeing a traditional-minded Catholic express such a view!