That, however, is not silence as the absence of sound, but silence as the presence of beholding. It's like the difference between hearing and listening....

Silence signifies the emotional, spiritual repose of an intimate encounter. It is the crucible from which emerges profound relationships and knowledge. Its occurrence at mass is a must for sealing the bond between those present, each and all, and God. Without it, God, the still small voice, cannot be heard.

Hence it is so important in prayer to remember to stop talking and start listening. The Lord will not speak until you are finished, and He will let you keep going as long as you like. He's just polite that way.

I guess my point is that recollection periods are subjective, that priests wind up foisting their ideas of piety onto us, and that there’s no harm in not having that awkward period in the liturgy.

In my opinion, there's no reason that a congregation shouldn't be able to join in on the remainder of the Gloria Patri/Glory Be (after the incipit) at the end or turn of the Introit. If they somehow need to sing something for the introit, there's no reason that they shouldn't be able to handle this.

And all of the change for the choir that it may require is to do the simple/straight-forward ending to the "Amen," rather than some of those that lead more directly back to the antiphon.

Let me ask: is there anyone here with a congregation that they think should sing less? If so, I'd love to join you at your parish some Sunday . . .

Clerget,

Name even a single highly placed prelate who says what you report.
Better yet, name one person who comments here who expresses the opinion you identify.

[Ok., I guess that was easier than it should be, but..... since there are such people, does that make their position correct?]

[Ok., I guess that was easier than it should be, but..... since there are such people, does that make their position correct?]

That was my point exactly. You will see the statements to which I refer in my post above, but they are incorrect.

" My problem is that usually the pause is inadequate for anything longer than a single breath." Inadequate for who and why? In my parish the priest does a long pause of almost 30 seconds before the confiteor. Nobody sees any problem. In a trappist monastery near here they do a pause of almost 30 seconds after each psalm in the divine office and in some moments of the mass (after the readings and the homily) a pause of almost 15 seconds. In the parish and in the monastery after communion there is a pause of almost 1min even if there is a thanksgiving hymn or chant (the priest always do a pause for thanksgiving in silence before the Prayer after Communion).

about that still, small voice

Charles Kuralt, you may remember him, wrote that up in a very remote part of Alaska or thereabouts he came across an isolated shack. He found that a diocesan priest had prevailed upon his Bishop to let him take a year off and go up there, to commune with God.
Kuralt asked the good Father if he had learned anything so far.
He was told, well, I've learned that although God is a very good listener, He doesn't talk much.

If the Mass is a continuous flow of events, maybe especially if you the PIP must vocally participate in them, there isn't much chance to hear that still, small Voice.

I agree. The Lord is a great listener, and will listen as long as you wish to speak. However, if you want to hear what He has to say, you must stop speaking, because He won't start until you stop. He's just polite that way.

There is an argument that if we're singing Holy Writ, we must be doing something good for God, worshipping Him, just by virtue of singing a sacred text, but I would argue that Satan himself puts the lie to this by quoting Ps. 90 when he tempts Jesus in the desert.

" it was the Protestants that first replaced liturgical chant with congregational singing"

Was it? I thought that was not exactly a certain fact, shall we say.

That the mass (whatever shape and content it had) was originally, in early times, sung by the congregation and that they were edged out of participation as centuries passed along, and that Luther and the Protestants restored the singing of hymns and liturgy to the people is a very old shibboleth that needs to be laid to rest. It feeds on Catholic vs Protestant antagonism and is given tiresome voice by polemicists on both sides of the fence who with ever more tiresome confidence assert fondly held beliefs for which no evidence exists to support.

We, none of us, not even any scholars, know exactly what the precise shape and content of the very early mass was; nor do we know but vaguely what was sung and by whom. Hymnody such as the many examples buried in the New Testament (such as the well known one from the Revelation, 'Worthy is the Lamb') seems to have been sung, but by whom we do not know. There is even vague evidence or intimations that some of these hymnic forms arose spontaneously. It wasn't until around the third and fourth centuries that psalmody came to replace the profusion of hymnic texts whose content was not always 'orthodox'. That there was a growing class of highly skilled cantors is clear, as is the certainty that scholae cantorum were, by the fifth and sixth centuries, established to sing a growing repertory of chant. What and how much the people sang cannot possibly be but a matter of speculation and conjecture.

There is ample testimony that skilled cantors were employed rather soon after the Church emerged from the catacombs, that the propers began to take a shape which matured around the sixth and seventh centuries, and that the ordinary took centuries, even into the mediaeval era, to acquire the content with which we are familiar. Just who sang what, though, and whether and what the people sang is very unclear. There is no evidence, literary or archaeological, that they sang anything like the hymnody typical of Reformation times at mass.

All this is unfortunate because it would seem to be, on the one hand, exemplary grist for those chic Catholics who insist that 'the people' must sing absolutely everything (as in the early Church); and, on the other hand, rationales for those other Catholics who seem to want 'the people' silenced (as in the early Church). Neither the one nor the other could possibly produce but a pittance of evidence for all their boastful screed - precisely because none exists.

And, Clerget, I would not put much stock in what a 'history book' says about liturgy, particularly that of early times. Such books are likely highly influenced by the sincerely-but-wrongly held views derived from the Protestant narrative, which is woven of both fact and fiction in generous-but-highly-biased measure. Nor is the Catholic narrative of such matters free of imaginatively constructed bias.

And, Clerget, I would not put much stock in what a 'history book' says about liturgy, particularly that of early times. Such books are likely highly influenced by the sincerely-but-wrongly held views derived from the Protestant narrative, which is woven of both fact and fiction in generous-but-highly-biased measure. Nor is the Catholic narrative of such matters free of imaginatively constructed bias.

If you would like to dispute Grout and Palisca (who wrote the book), that is your business. Because it's part of my degree-seeking track, I must go with what the book says. If we can't "put stock" in an academic textbook, then we certainly cannot do the same for anecdotal views of forumites, unsupported by any sort of academic research, and colored by their unique biases. It also appears that in the synthesis of your statement here, that you have not, in fact, read nor had any experience with the book to which I am referring, evidenced by the statement, "Such books are likely highly influenced by..." If what you state there is true, then please cite your source and provide evidence for it. The authors of the textbook have done academic research in order to produce it, and can support all of the claims made therein. If we cannot trust the knowledge imparted to us by scholars, then all we have is bickering, arguing, and dispute.

If you would like to dispute Grout and Palisca (who wrote the book), that is your business.

With respect, I think some perspective is needed regarding our undergraduate music history texts!

Grout (et al.) has been around for a long time—it was originally published in 1960 and was my primary history text as an undergraduate in the mid 1970's. It has been re-issued in various editions with various co-authors since then, but it is impossible to know what sections have been updated, and it contains no real bibliography, but rather a "for further reading" section that does not always provide evidence of recent scholarship. Further, it is intended as a 'survey' and presents a broad outline of the history of music. It certainly is not the sort of text one would cite in a dispute over a specific area of study. And, like most broad surveys, it contains questionable assertions of fact, and some dubious judgements regarding it's subject. It would be surprising for a book covering such a vast subject area not to! The authors of such a work cannot possibly have a specialist's knowledge of the entire subject matter.

That is why, after our undergraduate music history survey courses, we go on to higher level studies with texts written by authors who are truly specialists in their individual fields. And, note: these specialists will occasionally disagree with each other as they evaluate available evidence differently.

Grout is many things, but a specialist's guide to the development of music in liturgy it isn't!

" Unfortunately, political and social viewpoints have infiltrated scholarship."

That goes back way farther than you appear to imagine....

It's more a matter of technology enabling it to be more visible, as it were.

Protestants that first replaced liturgical chant with congregational singing

What does this statement mean? I suspect being in an academic textbook, that this is based on research, that looks at vernacular hymn books being published by protestants. I am sure there are records of what was sung in the the early Calvinist etc. chapels.

From this evidence we could write the above statement... but this would assume that the Liturgical chant was sung by a choir and not the Congregation, evidence to confirm this would be rather more difficult to find. We have evidence that the average small parish in England, Sarum Rite, had a choir to sing the chant, but did the Congregation join in? some say the Ordinary?

If we rewrote the above statement to "Protestants that first replaced liturgical chant (Propers) with congregational singing of vernacular hymns" we might have more agreement with the statement. Anyway it may be a good idea to read what the textbook really says...

that you have not, in fact, read nor had any experience with the book to which I am referring,

Indeed, when you say "my textbook" people may be in doubt over whether to search the catalogue under Clerget, or Kubisz. I imagine your degree track will eventually cover giving verifiable citations as well as reading with a critical eye.

Clerget Kubisz --

I don't know for sure that Richard was being confused, but when I read "my textbook", I wondered whether it was one you had written, and I'm clear now that you're discussing Grout. I don't think the later editions are as good, but that's just my take on it, I guess.

Cheers,
Chris

CK

One problem may be that you are, it seems, a student with your survey book at hand, whereas many of your interlocutors may have done more study over many years but do not carry their libraries around with them (let alone libraries they are no longer near in time or space). Your expectations may be unrealistic for the nature of the conversation in the medium. This is not a place where we're going to be comparing tertiary sources like survey books to a variety of monographs (whether primary or in secondary collections) et cet.

.

BTW, best of luck in that Master's program.

I, too, was tutored on Grout and hold him et al. in high esteem. One would be hard pressed to find a better general history of music. But it is just that: general, and certainly not authoritative in its broad assertions about very early liturgy, about which even specialised scholars are in the semi-shade and dark. Too, Clerget didn't say 'Grout', but 'my history book'. There is a difference. I stand behind what I said.

The perspective provided by Charles and others is appreciated. My above remarks, as ought to have been obvious, were in reference to the earliest several centuries, not later ones when the evidence yields a more certain picture.

Interesting, Richard.

Something not widely appreciated is the role that music, including sacred music and hymnody, played in home life in times past. In fact, it is only in relatively recent times that people did not entertain themselves at eventide and other times by singing, playing instruments, and, especially, singing sacred hymns and songs in the home. This is true equally of Catholic and Protestant communities. It is very likely that it would have been a strange Lutheran service or messe in historic times that included half as much hymnody as a modern Lutheran service in the US. This owing to the fact that much of the repertory of hymnody was used as much for catechesis and pure pleasure in the home as in worship at churches. Too, many hymns freely crossed denominational lines. Johann Franck's Jesu, meine Freude, for instance, became very popular throughout Europe and was translated into numerous languages, including a Russian version by no less than Peter the Great.

Too, as an aside, we think of chorale preludes and other chorale-based organ literature as having been introductory pieces for congregational singing. What is not often realised is that after the organ prelude the congregation very often spontaneously sang the chorale a capella, without the organ.