Oh, and I mean references from any period of history or religion, Christian, Jewish (I am aware of the scriptural references), or pagan, though I am focusing of the Christian situation of course.

As I understand the framework here concerning the role of the choir, there are two excesses: 1) the choir's role is clerical (old Cecilean view, influenced PX), 2) the choir is part of the people (goofy modern view). The third position is the right one: the choir's role is to stand in proxy for the chorus angelorum. I too would like to see an article more clearly spelling this out. It has important implications all around.

Mgr. Schuler mentioned that analogy in his editorials in Sacred Music, and at least once in his long series on the debacle following VatII.

IIRC, he posited that the choir served two functions: proxy for chorus angelorum (as Jeffrey has it above), and second, as proxy for 'the faithful.' IOW, the choir is an intermediary in both directions.

(previous statement has been corrected)

Thanks eft94530

You touch here on only one aspect of the Eastern view of the purpose and function of liturgy, that when we enter the church we leave the earthly world behind and enter the Kingdom of Heaven to worship with the choirs of angels. The Cherubic Hymn is far from the only overt example. In the Evlogitaria of the Resurrection sung at every Sunday Matins, we chant, "+Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. We worship +the Father and his Son and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity, one in Essence, and we cry out with the seraphim: +Holy, Holy, Holy are Thou, O Lord!"

The Evlogitaria from our parish (three of us, TTB, Znamenny chant, Tone 5):

http://centralpennsylvaniaorthodox.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/more-clips-only-one-now/

St John Chrysostom: "Above, the hosts of angels sing praise; below men form choirs in the churches and imitate them by singing the same doxology. Above, the seraphim cry out in the thrice-holy hymn; below, the human throng sends up the same cry. The inhabitants of heaven and earth are brought together in a common assembly; there is one thanksgiving, one shout of delight, one joyful chorus." (Homily I in Oziam seu de Seraphinis).

See:

http://www.liturgica.com/html/litEOLitMusDev3.jsp
http://www.saintbarbara.org/faith/worship/chant.cfm

Here's another, from Bishop Hilarion.

"Orthodox divine services are characterized by inner integrity and astounding beauty. From the priest's exclamation at the very beginning of the service we are immersed in an atmosphere of uninterrupted prayer, in which psalms, litanies, hymns, prayers and the celebrating priest's invocations follow one another in a continuous stream. The entire service is conducted as if in one breath, in one rhythm, like an ever unfolding mystery in which nothing distracts one from prayer.

Orthodox liturgical texts have, for Orthodox Christians, an incontestable doctrinal authority, whose theological irreproachability is second only to Scripture. Liturgical texts are a "school of theology" by virtue of being not simply the works of outstanding theologians and poets, but also the fruits of the prayerful experience of those who have attained sanctity and theosis...

If we can call the services of the Orthodox Church a school of theology, then the Divine Liturgy is this school par excellence. It teaches us about the mysteries of the Heavenly Kingdom because it itself is an icon of this Kingdom, the most complete, perfect reflection of the heavenly reality in our earthly conditions, a revelation of the transcendent through the immanent. In the Kingdom of God all symbols shall pass away, and only the heavenly reality will remain. There we will not commune of the Body and Blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine, but in a more perfect way we shall be united with Christ Himself, the Source of life and immortality. If the manner of our communion with God will change, its essence will remain the same - always a personal encounter with God, not of isolated people, but of people in communion with each other. In this sense it is correctly said that the Liturgy served on earth is but a part of the incessant Liturgy celebrated by people and angels in the Heavenly Kingdom."

"Boy choristers were only later added as a kind of descant to the alto line. A detailed study of the Sistine Chapel Choir of Men and Boys would be helpful too."

My priest and I had a discussion about this just the other day. One of the ways in which Slavic schools of chant diverged from Byzantine was before four part music developed, the Byzantine chant (plus ison) had a descant added. When full four-part polyphony developed, it was that original descant that became the melodic line, thus completely changing the chant.

While affirming enthusiastically the theological role of the choir so finely examined and illuminated above, I have some reservation about so limiting the role of the congregation in liturgies of our day and time. What is said above about their role is, of course, true - of the past. However, today's congregations are not the illiterate masses of olden times. They are capable of learning and singing and participating in a far more complete manner than would have been feasible in earlier times. Whole congregations can, as Anglo-Catholics know all too well, sing a number of the Gregorian ordinaries (in English and Latin), not to mention the likes of Willan and many others. To say in this day and time that they should content themselves with amens and and with your spirits would show a gross lack of appreciation of their capabilities, spiritual needs, intelligence and advancement. They are educated. They can often read or follow music. Rather than limiting the people, we need to be educating them more about the very things we are discussing here and teaching them Liturgically Appropriate music to sing. (And, let me assert that I am the last person who would be among those who insist that 'the people' have to sing and do everything.) This still leaves a major role for choirs, scholas and cantors to sing the propers and anthems - in addition to providing firm, angelic leadership in those parts that the people sing.

What ascends, descends. Just remember that.

Ah! This topic hits so close to what I want to report, and think I have discovered!

I just returned from 3 weeks in the UK - both Scotland and England. This included a most wonderful Mass (High Mass, for lack of a better contemporary description) at St. Mary's Cathedral in Edinburgh. It was the 15th - the Assumption - and their Patronal Feast Day. It was also the celebration of Cardinal O'Brien's 25th anniversary as Archbishop. My friend, Simon Niemiński, was the organist. And the Ordinary was the Communion in F by Harold Darke! (Except for the Credo, which was Credo I, with congregation, from text only in the worship aid!) It was exquisite!

Why can we in the USA not do this? I think I found the reason when I talked to the Pastor. It is their local tradition that, at least on big Feasts, the Ordinary belongs to the choir. And, when they perform polyphony, they do NOT tamper with the printed texts. So, Anglican sources are "allowed", so long as the congregation does not join in. He told me that they do use other contemporary settings when inviting the congregation to sing along. But here is the difference: we were told by budding "liturgists" (and the Ordained teachers and bosses) that the ENTIRE Ordinary belonged to the congregation, and had unfortunately been taken away from them over the centuries. Now it belongs to them once more. I even had one priest, even before the new ICEL translation came out, tell me that the Creed is "the peoples' Profession of Faith, and should NEVER be sung!" I'm sorry - that paints a picture in my mind that we all need to have our Missalettes (closest thing to a Bible in Catholic churches these days!) in our left hands, and all raise our right hands as we say our Creed!

Anyway, it looks to me like we in the USA can never return to any previous, or alternate translation of the Ordinary BECAUSE we gave it all to the congregation in perpetuity!

Can anyone think of a way to first reclaim the Ordinary for the choir (of the angels or of the congregation) and then reopen the realm of available translations?

P.S. I do agree with Jackson that congregations today are very capable of singing just about anything we give them, with proper preparation and within local tradition. But the point is that we CANNOT give them anything but ICEL (or Latin, of course) in that case!

Sure

Steve - what a refreshing report.
I am sure that, years ago, I read a rubric or a clause in the VII documents or some such to the effect that texts of the ordinary other than the official ones could be used when set to older musical compositions. This means (if I could just locate it!) that Catholics could be singing Willan and Englished Gregorian and that their choirs could be singing from the corpus of older English choral ordinaries. Of course, the liturgically chic would be aghast. But then - so what! It's their turn.

We are relieving them of sing more than the average protestant congregation, not taking things away!

Protestants walk away from Mass muttering about all the sitting, standing, kneeling and then all the music that they have to sing.

Of course, none of the pulp missals make it easy, even for Catholics, to follow the Mass and sing....so they stand there mute to all the catholics who are also standing there mute.