It is a puzzlement how a choir could sing the "Et resurrexit" of the Credo with the same "voice" as it sings the "Passus et sepultus est."

For that matter, it is amazing that a choir can dispassionately blat "Et Unam, Sanctam, Catholicam, et Apostolicam Eccelesiam" with no apparent conviction of the truth of those propositions.

Even a merely "I've heard it" knowledge of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis should inspire a more .....ahhhh......lively......take on the "Et resurrexit".

Yes, I think you're right. The syllabic familiar Chants are delivered in a ho-hum--probably because most scholas do not rehearse them (in contrast to your group); they pull them off-the-shelf to fill between the Propers.

For that matter, does the choir's singing of the "Amen" at the end of the Credo really, really, make you believe that THEY believe?

The most common chants are sung by each separate choir member in the way they each separately learned it (usually poorly) and so you end up with an ununified sound. The most common chants have to be unlearned and relearned at the same time.

A well-brought-up problem. We could call it the 'Familiarity Syndrome'. And, it isn't limited to chant. The same thing happens when Lutherans sing 'Ein feste Burg': they sing it, all right; but it is sung with an almost raw primitiveness. The same thing happens when Catholics sing 'Grosser Gott': it is a group cultural expression which lies outside any question of musical aesthetic. It is the same thing that happens when Evangelicals sing, say, 'What a Friend We Have in Jesus': it's singing, alright, but it may not be music to our ears.

Chant is no different. Any chant that a choir or congregation or cantor knows well enought to sing without attention to musical niceties can become victim of the Familiarity Syndrome. It can be Jesu dulcis, Veni Creator, or the offertory Jubilate Deo, or Alleluia, Pascha nostrum. It can be any chant. It becomes something one gets up and 'does', rather than performs in the finest sense of the word. This is partly due to the common and baneful notion that knowing the notes is knowing the music. We all know that notes are nothing but disjunct pitches unless sung by a mind which is consciously making poetry out of them. (For the sake of brevity, I'll stop here, though it would be interesting to develop these misconceptions and unfortunate attitudes.)

I will add, though, the thought that the poor manner of chant performance in MOST situations prior to the recent council contributed to the surprisingly rapid disappearance of chant in the following years. AND, it can happen again! The salvation of chant will be the putting into it of heart, mind, body, and soul, of every individual whose calling it is to be a chanter, and to do so EVERY time one chants. People know when they have something really fine and good - and they turn loose of it not easily.

Melofluent's last line sums it up: EVERY MOMENT one is ministering musically at liturgy must be artfully exposing a text.

FWIW, whenever I sense myself falling into mere familiarity with a chant, I've found it helpful to recall how many of them are indulgenced, either under the usual or special conditions (e.g. Credo, Anima Christi, etc. -- if I recall correctly there may be a separate posting on the subject).

While prayerfulness may not necessarily translate into musicality, it's a good start.

There's a lot to be said in this discussion. With syllabic chants, you have to be very careful not to let it fall flat and dull. Very easy to do if you don't be careful.