I keep cantors in the loft, period. I don't want the disconnect and time-delay from being a half city block away from them during mass. Also, I don't want them performing on the altar, which is always a temptation when in front of an audience. Now I know, the document chuckers will begin rambling about cantors in front. What I do works for me and the building, and is the best solution. Remember that the documents actually say, "or another suitable place." May the document chuckers have large tomes fall on them. ;-) What you need do is to determine what works best for you and your congregation, then get your pastor's approval.

I would just keep the cantor in the loft if at all possible. There is no real reason to put them down front. Either the people sing or they don't, having a singer looking like a football ref watching a touchdown doesn't really help.



If you must have them in the front, I would not have them do any sort of gestures. Musical cues (such as a pedal note before the first note in some cases) should be more than adequate.

Another advantage to being in the loft: you're up higher, so you naturally need less amplification already.

We can't preach following documents about chant having pride of place and the use of the propers, etc. and then ignore those said documents when we feel that doing the opposite of what they say is more pious.

Cantors, normally, belong in the front. Of course there are exceptions, which are what you have to weigh. But it is NORMATIVE for them to be in the front.

And, really, the "landing a plane" jokes have run their course. There is nothing wrong with a concise, succient gesture, along with artful organ playing, to bring a congregation in at the right time and help them feel secure in coming in.

My parish uses the propers, many times in latin from the Graduale Romanum. We have people who receive communion kneeling and on the tongue. We sing motets by Byrd, Palestrina, and di Lasso. We use chant a LOT for both choral and congregational singing. And, yes, our cantors do often make a gesture to invite the congregation to sing. The absence of such a gesture is not more conservative, faithful, orthodox, or any other such thing.

Keep them in the loft. Traffic directors are out of style.

-PaixGioiaAmor I agree with you we need to follow all the the documents and CharlesW your using the same argument that we usually use against the singing of P&W music because its the fourth option and Chant is the first.

I personally feel that after Vat 2 it made sense to have a cantor at the front because the church was trying to get everyone to sing in places that they were not singing previously. Therefore it may have made sense. The whole idea of encouraging people to sing seemed to be what everyone was supposed to do. It probably is not needed any longer. Most of the cantors we use in our church do cante at the Ambo but most are shy and would rather sing in the loft.

Then there is the latency issue that I mentioned on several threads. In larger churches were there is a delay. No one knows where to come in and music tends to slow because the organist is hearing the cantor a few milliseconds after the cantor sings it.

In small churches or in churches where people are not singing. A cantor should be used to help encourage but once everyone is participating on a regular basis they should back off and the congregation sing.

Right now, my cantor is right up on the altar with me (well, to the right to be exact), but once the new church is built (with a loft), they will be up there with me. My main concern is, and always will be, the entertainment mentality of singers and/or musicians. The loft is a GREAT place to inhibit that.

"But we must not read the GIRM in a vacuum."

But you do have to actually read it.

Whilst it is proper for the responsorial psalm to be sung from the same place that the readings are done, for reasons of practicality it is often preferable to have the psalm sung from close to the organ, which usually means in the gallery or loft where the organ is situated. This is so the organist, who typically accompanies can hear what is being sung and can accompany better.

It really boils down to a matter of practicality. Everything in the church has a practical origin. We don't have traditions for the mere sake of having traditions!

It is not proper for the resp psalm to be sung from the same place as readings, it is permitted. The permission is a relaxation of the rule that only the Gospel is to be sung/read from the pulpit. The usual place for the psalm to be sung is from the steps, hence the name Gradual. The tradition is not so that the organist can be with the psalm singer, since the psalm was often sung unaccompanied - like the readings and gospel - but that there was a movement - reading of epistle on opposite side at lower level - gradual psalm on the steps - and then gospel in the higher pulpit.

Modern practice, call ti an Ambo and let everything happen there. Who can explain why this happened and is better? How has it improved the mass?

fnj

yes that is very informative. so much of our tradition is lost.

Women in the sanctuary during Mass? Never. Laymen in the sanctuary at Mass not serving? Never. A person, other than the priest, touching a Host? Never.

When I first saw lay people distributing communion, I was shocked. When I saw high school kids distributing communion at the high school I was deeply saddened.

There is something very wrong about this. There was a circle, We confessed to the priest. We tried to live better. Then we confessed to the priest again. We had to be in a state of grace to receive communion. If we were not we stayed in the pew, not being soloed out for this since with the requirement of fasting from midnight, it was easy to forget and eat something...

Now we are faced with people we like and do not like, reading and singing from the Ambo. People who sing and read because they want to, unlike the priest who says Mass because it is his life.

Where should the liturgical dancers perform? I can't seem to find any mention in the documents. ;)

Women in the sanctuary during Mass? Never. Laymen in the sanctuary at Mass not serving?

I'm beginning to wrap my head around this statement. I never grew up this way. It is very foreign to me, so please bear with me. Because I attend/provide music for an OF Mass with women/laymen on the altar and lectors reading readings from the Ambo my opinion (and it's just that, based on my knowledge, which sadly, is lacking) is that the cantor should be at the back except for when he/she sings the psalm, at which point the cantor moves to the ambo for the psalm and Alleluia. Father has asked us not to use gestures to invite the congregation to respond. At first I wasn't sure about this, but now I see that it works, because hand gestures aren't used at any of the other parts of the Mass, where the congregation is to respond. When I see this done at other Masses, it seems out of place to me. Just my two cents.

By the way, your church is amazing! Wow! What a spectacular building. I am so jealous.

Wendi: GIRM # 61 says the cantor sings the psalm at the ambo "or another suitable place." GIRM # 309 covers everything that's done at the ambo.

I am of the opinion that the construct of giving any one of the four options priority is little more than wishful thinking. It seems to me that any one of the four meets the intent of the rules. I may like one or more of them better, and they may fit more into my own scheme of how things should be. I don't think, however, that is what the bishops had in mind when they wrote them. It also seems to me that there is far too much of an, "I'm right and you are all wrong," attitude on this forum. I propose a half-way house for neo-scholastics and nitpickers, to help them get over it. Somehow, I don't think all the parsing, dissecting, and hair splitting was ever the intent behind GIRM. Its purpose was to help establish some norms for liturgy, not hinder or encumber it. Certainly, the intent was not to provide fuel for endless disputation.

The primary concern for me is musical, in this case, and that means having three cantor by me. Liturgically, I see the validity and agree that it's ideal to have the cantor up front. But it takes preference that he and I can do the communication necessary for an effective musical product.

Wendi has a point, I think: does "ambo or another suitable place" actually refer to the cantor or to the more inclusive term psalmist? If a nonsinger is going to read the psalm then it makes sense to specify the ambo as a kind of fourth (or maybe fifth) option for the gradual.

I've heard that in Anglo-catholic circles around 1900 there was consternation in some quarters over the invasion of the chancel by robed but unordained choristers quitting the quire-lofts, and assume the "visibly part of the faithful" language could be read in that context. I certainly don't know that 'versus populum' is actually normative for the cantor. The old GIRM seems to have disappeared, but 2010 says:

The Place for the Schola Cantorum and the Musical Instruments

312. The schola cantorum (choir) should be so positioned with respect to the arrangement of each church that its nature may be clearly evident, namely as part of the assembled community of the faithful undertaking a specific function. The positioning should also help the choir to exercise this function more easily and allow each choir member full sacramental participation in the Mass in a convenient manner.

is there an INAPPROPRIATE place to chant the psalm? the cry room maybe?

Thank you all those who answered my question.

Sing to the Lord is so awful even the pages wouldn't burn.

Just as a Devil's Advocate, what about this?

St. Pius X, Motu Proprio, Tra le sollicitudine :

V. The singers
12. With the exception of the melodies proper to the celebrant at the altar and to the ministers, which must be always sung in Gregorian Chant, and without accompaniment of the organ, all the rest of the liturgical chant belongs to the choir of levites, and, therefore, singers in the church, even when they are laymen, are really taking the place of the ecclesiastical choir. Hence the music rendered by them must, at least for the greater part, retain the character of choral music.

By this it is not to be understood that solos are entirely excluded. But solo singing should never predominate to such an extent as to have the greater part of the liturgical chant executed in that manner; the solo phrase should have the character or hint of a melodic projection (spunto), and be strictly bound up with the rest of the choral composition.

13. On the same principle it follows that singers in church have a real liturgical office, and that therefore women, being incapable of exercising such office, cannot be admitted to form part of the choir. Whenever, then, it is desired to employ the acute voices of sopranos and contraltos, these parts must be taken by boys, according to the most ancient usage of the Church.

14. Finally, only men of known piety and probity of life are to be admitted to form part of the choir of a church, and these men should by their modest and devout bearing during the liturgical functions show that they are worthy of the holy office they exercise. It will also be fitting that singers while singing in church wear the ecclesiastical habit and surplice, and that they be hidden behind gratings when the choir is excessively open to the public gaze.

Salieri, if we were to follow the "Motu Proprio, Tra le sollicitudine" there would be no choir/music at our parish.

IMO in the trenches of parish life, it is quite difficult enough to get those in charge to follow the current norms in the GIRM without bringing in documents that have been superseded.

Some people may not LIKE the fact that women are now permitted to sing in choir, but the fact is, that they are permitted.

Muddying the waters or playing "devils advocate" does nothing to advance the restoration of sacred music.

It is in fact counterproductive.

Q.E.D.

canadash : If I were to follow "Tra le Sollicitudine" at my parish there'd be no music at Mass either.

When proclaiming a text, such as the Easter Proclamation or the Responsorial psalm, it makes sense to have the cantor in the chancel; when singing Schubert's 'Ave' at a wedding, the cantor should be in the choir area, whatever that may be in a particular church. When the cantor intones the Introit, s/he should be in the choir area with the schola.

The rubrics allow, for musical and accoustical reasons, the choir/cantors to sing from areas other than the loft; in some churches one place is accoustically better than the same place in another church. IMO, I don't think that in this instance the "other suitable place" is analogous with the four options of the entrance chant, for example.

Please forgive me, but I think this whole cantor thing is a moot point. I can prove that we need all male, vested choirs a la King's by "Tra le sollicitudine", another person can prove that musicians should be in the loft by "musicae sacrae", someone else can prove that the choir and cantors need to be visible to the 'assembly' by quoting "Sing to the Lord". This is a small matter, let's all agree that there is a certain lattitude here (true liberalism), and move on.