Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
It is a fine article. I must say that the arrangement at the Basilica-Shrine of the Immaculate Conception (and Cafeteria & Bookshop) appears unacceptable. To place the choir as a backdrop for the liturgy is distracting even though their choir manners are impeccable.
I think the article proposition makes sense, that the choir does belong in the chancel, but in its more traditional place, antiphonal style.
The only major isssue is having a choir director (or cantor!)distracting the liturgy by flailing their arms.
Can this be avoided?
The location of the choir at Westminster Cathedral in the apse appears ideal.
Brilliant post. I knew about the (failed) attempt of St. Pius X to restore male choirs. I I did not know about that of H.H. Pius XII. A choir director does not need to flail his arms to direct, and as for the ridiculous (there is no other word) raising of the hand by contemporary cantors (usually women whose singing is a most degenerate version of the operatic style hereabove condemned): Cui bono? NEMINI bono!—as few usually bother to try to sing along to such a performance, where the cantor at least seems too often to be interested in showing us the emotion in his voice rather than praying, let alone helping us to pray. Hard words, but sadly true.
Here is where the supporters of congregational singing have their argument break down. They like the chancel over the choir loft, as the singers are visible, but they don't like conducting. So are we to assume that the mere sight of a choir will trigger people in the pews to sing along, as compared to a choir situated in an American loft?
It's a lot easier when the choir sings, the altar boys make the responses and the congregation prays silently. This is how churches throughout the Middle Ages to the early 20th century were designed. To argue that the liturgically geographic choir -- with stalls facing the east and west walls -- should be used to lead the congregation in song is a very radical, 20th century idea that presents a host of challenges. Is it worth it?
No, he couldn't be more wrong.
It is quite distracting to have someone lead you from the front of the Church, and not conducive to prayer. It seldom works, and the organ placement is hard.
Much better to be in the choir loft.
Also, choir lofts did NOT originate in the 20th century!
Excellent post. I have been thinking about proper positioning of the choir for some time.
Ideally, I think having the choir in the chancel would be wonderful. However, I would be concerned that it could become distracting to the faithful, especially in the case of a arm-flailing choir director.
Is this argument equally applicable to the New Form?
Musicam Sacram has this to say about the membership and location of the choir:
"22. The choir can consist, according to the customs of each country and other circumstances, of either men and boys, or men and boys only, or men and women, or even, where there is a genuine case for it, of women only.
23. Taking into account the layout of each church, the choir should be placed in such a way:
(a) That its nature should be clearly apparent-namely, that it is a part of the whole congregation, and that it fulfills a special role;
(b) That it is easier for it to fulfill its liturgical function;
(c) That each of its members may be able to participate easily in the Mass, that is to say by sacramental participation.
Whenever the choir also includes women, it should be placed outside the sanctuary (presbyterium)."
It would seem that according to MS, the liturgical status of the choir is no longer determined by the gender of the singers. As to location, MS leaves the question more or less open. It depends on the architecture of the church building, its acoustic properties, local custom, liturgical needs, and so on.
I can see where a divided chancel location, even though 'liturgically correct', can easily create more problems than it solves if the building does not lend itself to it.
When a choir sings from the choir in the chancel, the choir is not "in the front of the church", but rather behind the altar -- the other back of the church. The altar is the front of the church.
Thank you for this interesting explanation of lofts. Obviously I'm in favor of mixed choirs and lofts for my own sake. :) However, I will point out that there are still churches (such as our local Hispanic Mass community) in which the mixed choir and instrumentalists sit in the front pews on one side and provide music from there. This wouldn't be desirable for all churches, but it would probably work well in churches with a dome between the nave and the sanctuary; it wouldn't matter that the choir had "its back to the congregation", because the sound would still be carried forward and back, and side to side.
Where would the organ go in this arrangement?
I do not see why both forms cannot be acceptable.
The ancient form of the choir- an all-male schola, vested in cassock and surplice, situated between the nave and the sanctuary- emphasizes it's vital liturgical role.
The use of a choir loft allows for mixed choirs and even, as we have seen in such churches as St. Agnes in St. Paul and St. John Cantius in Chicago, orchestras. This opens up the musical repertoire beyond Gregorian chant to polyphony, baroque, classical, ect.
The condemnation of the choir loft seems to me to be nothing more then an extension of the contempt many have for anything baroque. The idea that liturgical renewal entails a rejection of the Counter-Reformation period is bizarre.
The instruction of the last canonized pope on whether or not we should be watching the choir:
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.
http://www.unavoce.org/
intersoll...licitudines.htm
I think this article is a little illogical and not a little impractical.
We are told that the choir must be "up front" to represent the "people" yet the "reform" of St Pius X presupposes that the choir has, to some degree, clerical status (not just that only men could be present in the sanctuary). Certainly as a consequnce of similar notions in his day Palestrina had to leave the the choir either of St. Peter's or of the Sistine chapel because he was married. See in this regard the very interesting discussion in the old Catholic Encyclopedia in which the author obviously was trying to contain within acceptable boundaries the impact of the then new reform. He would restrict its impact to situations whre such choirs of clerics existed.
Having a choir and its director behind or to the side of the altar is too awful to contemplete. It resembles the arrangements at Baptist churches I have visited.
As for the "disastrous consequences" for the liturgy I suppose that verdict includes the entire tradition of Catholic liturgical music from 1600 to 1900: Monteverdi, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Rossini, Faure etc. I have read that the first performance of Verdi's requieum in the US was at St. Ann's parish church in NY in the 1870's.
The great tradition of liturgical orchestral music did continue in South Germany and Austria - at least until recently. I have always wondered: did they ignore the Gregorian chant reform there or did they benefit from an indult? Perhaps an expert can comment.
The choirloft, while perhaps liturgically not the most *pure* solution, is simply the most practical and seems suited to the mixed choirs ubiquitous today. If vested choirs of men and boys become more common, certainly they can and should be placed in the chancel, or, as Charles Borromeo suggested, behind the high altar/baldachin in the apse as at Westminster or the like. Chancel choirs are often very impressive and lead to very splendid ranks of choirstalls but they also can sometimes be a bit out of place in some parish churches, deep chancels being a bit more monastic in character. That being said, I think all three arrangements have their place depending on local circumstances, though the choirloft is the one least likely to cause headaches under current conditions.
At a previous time in my life I often went to Evensong and sometimes Mass at an Anglo-Catholic Church where the choir was situated within the chancel, and split, facing each other. In one church there was a Rood Screen and in another there wasn't. In neither case was the choir a distraction from the liturgical action taking place. The director was not "flailing his arms" but rather directing from the organ console which was "built in" with the choir stalls. The chorists sitting on the same side as the organist could see his directions in a mirror. Even when the director was visible as when directing an a capella piece he was not a distraction. And the congregation sang along well at the proper times without any sort of direction.
In my experience, this scenario works well, especially on days that require processions.
First, an editing item: I am sure that the author meant "..prOscribed...[by Pius X]...", not prEscribed.
The article may be historically correct, but I think the author slips into 'historicism.' Front-placed choirs, screened, are all fine, but a "wind-tunnel"? Really!
I've been active in both situations. There is no question that the front-placed choir (particularly if NOT screened) is a distraction, period.
And in all three churches in which we've been (rear)-choir-loft placed, with the organworks right there, there is no "wind-tunnel." It has been, instead, an acoustical heaven in properly-designed churches, and acoustical ....purgatory....in one which was actually designed as a gymnasium and had a carpeted nave.
History is nice, but should not be enshrined as dogma.
The corresponding argument in Orthodox church would be, do we build a choir loft, or do we a build a church that would have space for a traditional left/right antiphonal choir setup? Most people in this country have never seen the latter actually work for one reason or another, so there are usually a lot of blank looks when this gets mentioned.
Richard
I hope this question is not out of place but the cassock and surplice are mentioned in the piece in the context of "males only." As a director of music for a parish who is building a new church building, there is a trend towards buying "new stuff" for the "new church." The topic of choir robes has been raised. We don't have them now but there is some interest in purchasing choir robes for the new church.
I tend toward the "timelessness" and beauty of good liturgy (not to mention the "correctness") so I am inclined to press for red cassocks and surplices for our mixed-sex choir. Is this okay - for both men and women in the choir to wear cassocks and surplice? Being in the deep South and a former Southern Baptist, I tend to think that the other alternatives just don't look "Catholic" enough. Where can I find guidance on this?
Southern Catholic--whether or not women in choirs should wear surplices or not is a good question; for my own part I don't mind it too much (though purists will object) as long as the cassocks below aren't black. Incidentally, some orders of sisters (canonesses regular) wore surplices as part of their choir habits. One solution is to have the women wear some sort of headgear with their choral robes to distinguish the sexes. I believe some Anglican choirs put men in cassock and surplice and women in skullcap and black cassock, no surplice, which is slightly un-uniform but works as well.
I strongly dislike single-color or Protestant looking choirrobes with bands, though.
I am just wondering if there is not a bit of confusion in this discussion in not making the distinction between monastic churches and parish churches. The former still retain the chancel and choir for obvious reasons, while the later have undergone an organic growth through the centuries, culminating in the choir loft as an architectural and liturgical necessity, but done away with after Vatican II.
This is really only a useful discussion if someone is building a new church or putting lots and lots of $$$$$$$ into an old one. Whatever you do, do NOT put people in a choir loft where it is enclosed on three sides, because the singers just have no idea what they really sound like in the nave, and thats a huge part of singing, adjusting to your surroundings. That foundational technique is nearly impossible to acheive in such a choir loft. The loft should be open on three sides, and for heaven's sake the organ pipes/speakers should be behind and/or around the choir so all the sound comes from the same place at the same time.
Why is it that Catholics treat their musicians so badly, as if we just don't really matter? Why is it that Catholics just won't pay to hire really qualified choirmasters and pay them a living wage? You really do get your money's worth from people who know what they're doing. I feel very lucky to be full time at my parish, but know so many high dollar Catholic churches with horrible music, mostly because they won't pay for the good stuff. Episcopal churches with that kind of income would never let such a thing happen. What's the deal?
I think that any Church should have one all-male (and an all-female where possible) choir, purely from a musical standpoint, but I don't see why this needs to be done to the exclusion of mixed choirs. But then again, neither do I share what seems to be a common disdain for Baroque and post-16th century music. I would tend to think that mixed choirs are an organic development and a good one at that.
I am listening to Biber as I speak, and I am yet to hear a good argument for exclusion of all (as opposed to some) Baroque music from Churches, St. Pius X notwithstanding. In fact, I have heard a performance of Mozart (and Haydn, and lots of other music that some people here dislike) given by an all male choir. I think that exclusion of all post-16th century music is just as archeological and just as wrong as all the other post-Vatican II archeologisms. You can't just halt and go back to some ideally imagined past, even a medieval past. What you can do is to better integrate music from different ages.
Ken, I am not sure on what you base your idea that medieval congregations did not sing along. I think there is quite a deal of evidence to the contrary. This does not necessitate any radical rearrangement of choir spaces. There are lots of ways in which this could be facilitated, notably by organ accompaniment or (in case of sequences) by a regular rhythm. A whole congregation singing both sounds spectacular and is a glorious means of prayer.
I must confess, I singularly dislike women in cassocks or in the sanctuary, both from a liturgical and from an anthropological perspective: We desperately need all-male preserves.
Beside the question of "all-male preserves," ought not the wearing of cassocks and surplices by women be avoided just due to the fact that these are, strictly speaking, clerical garments? I've never been convinced that a mixed choir outside the sanctuary needs robes at all. They're distracting, and more importantly, don't have much organic basis in liturgical tradition. (Unless someone can correct me.) This is especially true of the protestant-looking robes mentioned by Southern Catholic. If it's uniformity you're after, why not consider a tasteful dresscode?
I would agree. Outside of the sanctuary, with exceptions made for processions and men in transition from sanctuary or procession to choir loft, laity should not be robed.
Southern Catholic:
I am familiar with many different situations and I would agree that the pseudo-baptist choir robe is not a good solution because they too are distracting. In practice choirs are meant to be heard and not seen. If this is the case then no special liturgical vesture would be necessary. However, if they are conspicuous then it is perhaps proper for them to be in a nice alb and cincture as it is not strictly for clerics but is rather the garment of the baptized. With this solution there is no gender questions or lay/cleric questions.
One the main topic:
On one hand I can appreciate what the note stated about some of the deficiencies of a choir loft. However, recently our choir has been switching between the choir stalls and the choir loft. When they are in the loft their sound is far superior. One reason is because they are not divided and so they can hear each other better. Also, acoustically their sound moves through the whole church better than when they are in the choir stalls. Also, when one is in the nave there is an effect that the music is coming from the midst of the congregation as opposed to when they are in the stalls. When they are in the choir stalls there is a sense that you are being sung at as opposed to being sung with.
I am familiar with the so-called "wind tunnel" effect. This is the reason why the choir at Westminster Abbey is where it currently is. A few years ago I had a conversation with James O'Donnell (the Master of Choristers there) about this very phenomenon and he was working on ways to eliminate the problem. So, it is, I think, unfair to set a blanket statement of where the choir MUST be because one must consider both the acoustical design of the building itself in and with the proper liturgical praxis.
In relation to Southern Catholic's question about dress for a mixed choir, I can relate that the mixed choir at our EF Mass (in Australia) has for about 10 years worn plain black academic gowns (as for English undergraduates), and this seems to work quite well to give uniformity.
I also agree with other commenters that it is not appropriate for women to be vested in cassock (whether or not overlaid with a surplice). The cassock is a clerical garment and it sends a very confusing ecclesiological message for women to be vested thus.
Very hot topic!
First, doesn't it seem the original author brings up what ought to be ideal, even if it cannot be practiced in every circumstance?
What ought to be BEYOND debate, and yet what seems to be considered secondary or of little importance in this discussion, is that the choir performs a LITURGICAL FUNCTION. That ought to be the first consideration, not aesthetics only.
Also, it seems some are unaware that the common baroque mixed choir did not sing ANY of the Propers during Mass, (meaning they were not sung at all), and were often extremely dramatic and unliturgical. When we moderns think of a Mozart Mass, we think of St. John Cantius, where a well trained schola chants the propers also, and things are done with much propriety, that simply was not the case before Pius X. He wrote his MP for a reason, things were a mess.
If you understand that the choir's function is primarily liturgical, (without the psuedo-distiction of monastic vs. parish), then a choir in stalls, vested, is ideal, even if it cannot be executed in all, or even many places.
PS. Re. Parish vs. Monastery, shouldn't parishes by influenced by monastic ideals, rather than considering a monastery an ivory tower that has nothing to do with the 'pastoral requirements' of a parish?
To consider every practice of the baroque period as an organic developement is faulty. You can appreciate baroque architecture, its music, its spiritual writers, and yet not want to recreate all baroque liturgical practices.
We do exactly that with the Medieval period, we imitate what was good or ideal, and we leave to history the abuses, (which were many).
Pittsburgh:
I make the distinction between monastic and parish churches because these have different functions in the life of the Church. If you want the monastic ideal in the parishes then all the people would sit in the choir. But the choir has traditionally been reserved for the clergy be they monks, priests, etc. Even Cathedral churches have tended to be different from regular parish churches in accomodating the schola and clergy. A chancel and choir is not needed in regular parish churches since these do not usually have a large clergy to seat.
It's a blessing not to have to look at a choir or cantor singing.
Our music director just moved our cantor from the choir loft to the front, where they wave their arms and smile and emote for every sung response, as if the congregation could not possibly sing without this extra visual help.
When we see a cantor's face, the cantor is not facing toward Christ. It is then a performance, not a prayer.
Someone mentioned that you get what you pay for, musically. As a liturgical musician I disagree so strongly with this. Performers get paid, but prayer should not be financially reimbursed. This is not to say that a coordinator of liturgical music should be compensated for his time, but my whole beef with visible singers is the visible ego that comes with performance. The choir should sit near the organ if there is an organ. If they are singing a capella, it shouldn't matter where they sit, as long as they face the tabernacle.
Performers get paid, but prayer should not be financially reimbursed.
I'd agree with the overall sentiment but not the practical effect. By this reasoning, we shouldn't pay priests either. Bottom line is that the training sure doesn't come cheap, particularly for folks with terminal/professional degrees and/or who are also organists, and the time involved certainly would, at the very least, appear to represent a value for the parish being served. That's either worth something or it isn't, regardless of the other issues involved -- surely the worker is worth the hire, is he not?
Richard
Richard:
A Priest does not earn his pay from the celebration of the Sacraments but rather is paid because of all the other stuff he does. The celebration of the sacraments is his vocation not his job. I am not disagreeing with your statement that there needs to be well trained musicians I am just clarifying that single point because it is a common misconception.
Pittsburgh:
I think that your starting point may be faulty. First, if we are speaking about liturgy in the local parish it is improper that the liturgy is primarily influenced by the monastic settings. Rather, a parish is an extension of a Cathedral and as such should be influenced from Cathedral Liturgy. From the earliest times this has been the separation in liturgical practice (Cathedral v. Monastery). Each has their place and each is influenced by different factors and historic traditions.
This being said we can move to the use of music. Traditionally there was a greater simplicity to monastic music because of necessity. Cathedral liturgy was always more "high church" as is fitting. Now, because of this we have to respect the organic growth of music as an integral function of this different mode of worship so items such as we find in the baroque period are the logical outcome. I will grant that you are correct about the decadence that developed and that the seeming canonization of that period by others is nostalgic at best. I would also agree that you are correct in your assessment of the Church discerning what is good music and what is inappropriate by its continued use of a piece or it falling into disuse.
So, if this is the case then we can't say that choristers are there primarily for liturgical function. Rather they are a necessary part of the whole because of the absolute necessity of objective aesthetics in the liturgy especially in Cathedral liturgy from which the local parish would find its patrimony.
Br. Gabriel,
Thank you for your insightful points regarding my comments. Your point that the parish takes its model from the cathedral is quite true, and something I did not give enough thought to. That being said, shouldn't a parish follow the model with choir stalls and litugcal choir?
PS. I'm a big fan of the liturgical choir, I think it is an awe inspiring sight that adds a great deal of solemnity to the liturgy.
I think a musician's Sunday morning and Holy Week is like his tithe. If he is a good musician, he's already being compensated during the week.
Our church brings in extra instrumentalists (trumpet, occasionally strings) during Holy Week, Easter, and Christmas. They're not Catholic, and it makes sense that they would be paid.
Pittsburgh, I am certainly not saying that every practice of the baroque (or of the medieval) period is ideal (I myself am a historian of medieval philosophy and have a decided preference for medieval vestments and Gothic architecture), but only that the Baroque period (or the medieval) should not be totally disregarded when it comes to choosing music. I entirely agree that the development of history can decide (provided of course, we realize that we are part of that historical chain).
I am not a historian of the Baroque, but I would imagine that some propers were indeed sung, though I am willing to be corrected. Else,why bother writing them or preserving them? We do have some (though fewer than late medieval settings) Baroque propers, after all, and Baroque (polyphonic, instrumental, and chant) settings of propers, both for older propers, and for new saints and feasts. I imagine that there us greater diversity in the Baroque musico-liturgical landscape than we are commonly led to assume.
Br. Gabriel, without intending to be querulous, I do not dispute so much as suspect the statement about albs being baptismal vesture, and hence suitable for women to wear. It is usually put forward as a knock-down argument without citations. A number of questions are worth considering:
1) Was it worn by women in the early Church? Or in pagan Rome?
2) Is there any tradition of its use in the last 1000 years prior to the twentieth century? Or even the last 1500 years?
3) What would be our attitude to the ordinary person in the pew turning up in an alb?
Peter, I simply do not see a good reason to making a distinction between women (or men outside the sanctuary) in the choir, and the rest of the congregation. Even if academic gowns are not priestly vestments, by the choir having these vestments, they are being visually set apart from the congregation, while still being part of it. This ambiguity of identity strikes me as extremely undesirable. Yes, a choir is performing a liturgical function, but I thought part of the point about the last forty years was that the congregation has a liturgical, and not just an aesthetic or spectatorial, function. The choir is already in an exalted position. It does not need to be further differentiated. One also needs to ask why it is that when choir dress is being discussed, a simple black dress (like in an orchestra) is never suggested, but rather all suggested vestments take their model from actual priestly vestments.
Br. Gabriel: so noted.
Laura K.: I can't agree with you, because for any church musician who is worth their salt, Sunday morning is a lot more than just Sunday morning. And if they are responsible for services beyond Sunday morning, it becomes "more than just Sunday morning" all the moreso. That it is prayer does not mean that it has any less value to the community it serves; in much the same way I'd expect a Catholic painter (or Orthodox iconographer) to be fairly compensated for what they do, prayer for them though it may be.
Richard
Pittsburgh:
I don't know but I think it is an important question. I think that there needs to be a flowing out from the Cathedral and so even the most solemn rites in a local parish should pale in comparison to the rites in the Cathedral itself; for this reason I don't think that a Cathedral should be a parish (but this is an ecclesiology question and I should not digress too much). My opinion would lean toward the negative and that such a choir should be reserved to the Cathedral where a more simple choir and schola should inhabit the local parish. And where I say simple I mean in perspective to the Cathedral and not simple in the profane sense of the word.
Kiran:
1. Yes and Yes. The alb was an un-common tunic to which we as Christians gave a special meaning. Remember the alb was white and not undyed. The difference is that it was very costly at the time to make a thing truly white and was usually only found in the upper classes of society.
As Fr. Z rightly notes on his blog, this Sunday was known as Dominici in albis depositis and was when the new Christians (neophytes) were "allowed" to finally remove their white garments (albs).
2. No. It was a practice that went into disuse due to the manner in which Christian Initiation was changed in the Carolingian Dynasty. As we know (rightly or wrongly) the post conciliar reforms have tried to return to the earlier traditions of initiation and so the return of the alb as an item for the lay faithful (as it is by right). Even for the priest to wear this was as a reminder of his baptismal priesthood and vows even to this day.
Also, the surplice was developed which is itself an alb modified for practical reasons. As we know, the wear of this "form" of the alb is and was common. Also, in the religious orders the use of the alb was maintained over the surplice for the most solemn liturgies. However, since the common use was liturgical after the point in time I noted above the wear of an alb by women was lost for obvious reasons.
3. It would be odd because the legitimate development of the wear of the alb has made it a more liturgical garment. For this reason I would advocate that anyone who is serving in a capacity other than an altar server at a Novus Ordo should be vested in an alb as it fits the complimentarity of the Ministerial priesthood and the Priesthood of the Baptized each in their own proper roles. This includes the choir because as I stated earlier they are not merely filling a functional position. I think that this is also true with the usus antiquior such as in the rare case that you have a real Lector read the lesson as is his canonical right.
I think the main fault of the author (besides his wild assertion that choirs in a choir loft produce a sound similar to being in a "windtunnel") is that he has failed to realize a crucial distinction.
He is confusing the term "choir" (which in Liturgical context refers to the assembled clerics and DOES belong in the sanctuary) with the "choir" that provides the music, polyphony, etc.
"A Priest does not earn his pay from the celebration of the Sacraments but rather is paid because of all the other stuff he does."
While a nice thought, this is incorrect.
Evaristus:
I am curious as to why you think that statement is incorrect. If the vocation of a priest is to offer the sacraments and he were paid to fulfill his vocation then it would be a tact form of simony. I know that many priests may think that they get paid to "say mass" but in fact their salary is not related to their sacramental ministry. Rather their pay is a direct corollary of their administrative ministry in the Church.
A priest being paid for confecting the sacraments would be the same as a husband or wife getting paid to tend their children or in fact relate to each other.
Br. Gabriel,
It is the duty of Catholics to "contribute to the support of their Pastors."
Pastors have certain responsibilities and duties.
The most important and Sacred function of a priest is to confect the Sacraments.
It is his duty/responsibility as a Pastor.
If he is not doing that, he is not doing his duties.
One can then go to the Bishop and say, "This priest is not performing his duties as he should."
The priest deserves a salary for what he does BUT IT IS UNLIKE ANY OTHER JOB.
But pretty much any job can be made to sound demeaning if phrased correctly.
If I am a building owner and say to visitors: "That is John. His job is to pick up the trash. When he picks up the trash, I give him money as a reward. When John does NOT pick up the trash, I don't give him any money."
A better way to phrase it:
"John is the custodian. For his work, he is paid a salary."
Richard,
I don't know why paying someone to pray makes the prayer more valuable. In my experience the opposite is true.
Yes contribute but not for that reason. Rather because a pastor of souls should ideally live off of alms. If, then, we are to pay our priests for their sacramental duties then we violate the rest of the Sabbath but since this is not the case we as priests and religious do not work but rather rest in the mysteries of the Lord.
This is the same with those who give their services to the Church on Sundays such as the cantors and other ministers. They should not be paid for their work on Sundays if they are paid personnel but rather should be paid for all the work they do otherwise.
Br. Gabriel,
I would suggest reading the Old Testament. Giving to the Church is not a "tit-for-tat" thing: it is much deeper than this.
Brother Gabriel:
You are right about priests violating the Sabbath or even comitting simony in their sacramental duties should they get paid for these. But the lay choir/cantors/organists must spend time and effort to practise during the week, and that is what they are being paid for, not the liturgical service they give on Sundays.
Ted:
Exactly my point.
Evaristus:
Are you always condescending? What I am saying is a matter of fact and not some obscure issue. I was just clarifying a point that most people (including yourself it seems) mistake particularly in the United States. For instance there was a recent conversation about this very issue in relation to priestly stipends in our priory and this very point was clarified for our priests. But we digress.
Laura:
I don't know why paying someone to pray makes the prayer more valuable.
That isn't what I said. However, because this is verging on talking past each other, I will simply note that we don't agree on this point, and move on.
Richard
Br. Gabriel, thank you for the answers. Much appreciated! :-)
I must confess I have never seen a choir vested in anything but a cassock with or without a surplice, red or black. Though, as Peter informs us, apparently it does happen.
Look,
this article's historiacl points are very important and should be considered.
There should be choir stalls in a church for visiting priests etc to attend in Choir in any case.
2: (male) Laity performing 'monastic' or 'collegiate' choir functions is extremely old. Boys were heavily involved in monastic and Cathedral choir ceremonies in th early days and still are in some places that have not abandoned this tradition.
Similalrly, university chapels are traditionally collegiate in style (ie: pews/stalls facing each other) and this tradition should be maintained.
There is also no reason why you can't have both a loft and a collegiate style choir and use both or one or the other, depending (of course, acoustics could be a problem here). The choir could sing the propers and the loft the ordinary and hymns.
Also, what has been forgotten is that fact that choirs do not simply assist at mass, not are churches just for mass. They should also be designed for the divine office- which does not necessarily promote lofts in its ceremonial
Daniel:
I agree with you that a Church should be built with more than Sunday Mass in mind. The entire liturgical and para-liturgical tradition of the Church needs to be kept in mind.
I do not agree however that there is an actual "tradition" of lay people helping in the monastic choirs. A tradition implies that it was intentional. However, you would be hard pressed to prove that such a thing was done intentionally and not as a result of necessity during the various times in the Church when religious life was suffering. In collegiate chapels this was more common and a norm because according to some traditions the whole nave was in choir. Remember that pews were a late protestant development.
The older Catholic tradition is the Rood which is the cousin of the iconostasis and the only people allowed in the choir were those in vows. There are still a few examples of this in Europe. With the Rood a person in the nave couldn't even see the choir because it was traditionally opaque so that the laity would not disrupt the religious at prayer nor would the laity be disrupted by the religious praying. The only thing that was visible from the nave was the altar.
I guess my point is that it depends on what "history" one wants to focus on as their touchstone. It is important to not fall into antiquarianism but at the same time we must not submit to modernism. There is a 'medio via' that needs to be found in all this or else we are just doing mental gymnastics.
Br. Gabriel,
I assure you I am very serious.
There is a spiritual and important history to all of this. Esp. pertinent are certain passages in the Old Testament.
From you people are saying, it sounds like it makes no difference to an organist or choir director's salary if they show up on Sunday! Right?
According to you, the organist who is getting paid for St. John's Church never has to show up to Mass at St. John's. He can go to Mass at St. Charles and sit in the pews. After all, it is not like it is part of his job to play the organ at St. John's on Sunday, right?
Or the music director at St. John's: what if he never shows up on Sundays or Holy days to sing and direct Mass? According to you, the Pastor has no right to complain because that is not part of his job!
Right?
That is your logic.
It is false.
It is wrong.
And simony has NOTHING to do with this issue.
The Vatican organists and musicians are paid to do the Masses. Are you accusing Pope Benedict of simony????
I got news for you: if they don't show up to Mass and sing/play, they get FIRED. Period.
I think I see the miscommunication. I am not saying that is not part of their job to be at the Sunday Mass [sic]. What want I am saying is that the work that the are doing on Sunday is not paid work. They are paid for all the other stuff that the do - or rather that is the disposition that should be held to in the various churches. A person who works for the Church is usually paid less then what they would get outside of the Church for the reason that in some way they have to see their "job" as a ministry and an act of service that they owe the Church because of God's gift to them of talent. This is not a popular thing to say these days of anti-tithing movements but it is the truth nonetheless.
Unless I am very much mistaken, you actually do admit that it is part of their job to be there on Sundays (for example).
The salary is given for their job.
Yes I agree. It may seem like I am splitting hairs but it is an important point and factors into the aspect of stewardship (if people are wondering why I am perpetuation this conversation this is the reason). I'll use the priest as an example.
A priest is asked to witness a wedding.
The witnesses the wedding
The priest receives a stipend
The question is: For what did the priest receive a stipend? The law of the Church says that a priest does not receive a stipend for witnessing the wedding but rather for his time. This is the same with other sacraments.
This is similar with ministers who work for the Church since the priest is the "universal" when dealing with "ministers" in a parish.
In our case here the Music Director is paid for the work that he does but is not paid for his "work" on Sunday as that is his ministry.
It is a fine distinction - but hey, I'm a Dominican and that is what we do.
Daniel, I take your point insofar as it involves boys. But the situation with orders would probably have been much more complicated. I can't be certain, but I imagine that most -if not all - of them would have been novices or members of minor seminaries.
Br. Gabriel, I must confess I disagree with the idea that, for tradition to be such, it must be intentional. I think almost exactly the opposite. The intention of the individuals does not matter in the least. What matters is what God makes of it.
That said, I agree with you that choir directors etc... get paid stipends, like anybody who practices the liberal arts. One can say that even outside of the context of simony, etc..., from the point of view of the fact that one does not, and cannot, get remunerated financially, for the pursuit of the Liberal Arts. As such, and especially in the context of worship, I do not think it is appropriate to desribe attendance at Mass as a "job."
But here is where things become quite tricky (and I submit the following purely in hair-splitting and not controversial interest). A music director who gets fired (and I have known this to happen) can have redress in (secular) courts, and in some circumstances, this might be appropriate (as indeed it was to my satisfaction in the case I mentioned). But a priest who gets dismissed or transferred can only at most seek redress in ecclesiastical courts. Is this an anomaly? Should both cases be treated only in ecclesiastical courts? This brings up an entire other question along the lines of regnum vs. sacredotium, which is well worth discussing even if not here.
I submit that if that an organist/cantor/chorister doesn't show up, it says that they don't particularly care, and that someone else who cares more should be appointed.
Think how ridiculous it would be to pay the lectors, the deacons, or the altar servers. My sons would probably be laughed out of the sacristy if they had their hand out for financial reimbursement for serving at mass. Some funeral masses they get there an hour early to practice, and they stay afterwards for interrment. Most times they don't get any money. Occasionally they get a cash "tip," but they don't expect it, and they serve at funerals because it's a ministry, not because it's a job.
It's more difficult with musicians because we don't think of our work as *serving*. We think of it as *performing*. Say a lector went to college as a journalist, and had been professionally trained to speak in public. I'm sure he would do an excellent job proclaiming the gospel. Wouldn't it be proper to pay him for his work on Sunday, because it's even more important?
Laura, how is a priest supposed to live if people do not support him?
It is NOTHING to be ashamed of.
Kiran:
What I mean by intentional is that it is something that is deliberate and consistent with the larger tradition of the Universal Church. An example is in the dioceses of the US we kneel after the Agnus Dei for the Ecce Agnus Dei in the Novus Ordo. The recognitio of this practice discusses this concept of tradition.
Your second points are well taken and the situation you describe is part of that troubling aspect of being in the world but not of the world.
Laura:
You said: "we don't think of our work as *serving*. We think of it as *performing*."
When I hear this I must say that this is a nice practical argument for the use of the Choir loft as opposed to other options. The loft helps readjust the disposition of the choir itself so that they are not performing but are assisting at and serving the liturgy - and in opposition to those who through much vanity seem to think that by their voices they in some way "create" the liturgy.
That is indeed a good argument for choir lofts, that those in the choir must be heard and not seen. It would also be a great argument in favour of choir screens of some sort.
But then again, in my experience, it is choirs that are not used to being in the sanctuary that have a tendency to showiness when put there. One cannot show off (or is less disposed so to do) in situations in which one finds oneself on a day to day basis. But then again, I suppose some parish priests have a tendency to "perform" their masses. So, my claim cannot be universal.
It seems to me that, nobody is here in disagreement that priests and others need to be paid stipends, and that the workman deserves his wages, but as to how this is phrased and its significance. And a good deal depends on signification in the Church.
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
