Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Mass in 2 Languages
ROME, JULY 26, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.
Similar to the question on multilingual Masses (see July <> 12) a Los Angeles reader wrote:
"I would like to know, is it permissible to sing several different lines of the Memorial Acclamation over and over. This is done in English and Spanish; we have a bilingual Mass. It seems as though the choir sings for example, 'Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again' and adds lines in between in the other language. If they start it off with Spanish, they intersperse with English. This is very distracting."
The earlier column mentioned that, in general, the mixing of languages in Mass should be reserved for special occasions, limited above all to the Liturgy of the Word. The Common prayers should be said or sung in the prevalent tongue.
We did make an exception for an especially well-orchestrated choral rendition of one of these prayers in another language. But the case mentioned above is somewhat different as it mixes two languages in one piece.
As the Book of Ecclesiastes says: "There is nothing new under the sun" (1:9). The problem of choirs singing in several languages at once was discussed at the Council of Trent and almost led to the prohibition of polyphonic singing during Mass.
The Council Fathers stressed that in liturgy, the word always has priority over the music and the function of liturgical music should always serve to express the word to its greatest advantage.
Some Fathers feared that certain compositions, while beautiful to the ear, encumbered and obscured the word, rendering it unintelligible in a maze of harmonies and counterpoints.
In the end, the work of such great composers as Pierluigi da Palestrina and Tomas Luis de Vitoria saved the day by finding a middle way between intelligibility and musical expressiveness.
It is probable that the above-mentioned mix of Spanish and English in the Memorial Acclamation does not exactly echo de Vitoria and Palestrina. But the principles involved, that of the priority and intelligibility of the word over the music, are the same as those faced by the Tridentine Fathers.
Our reader comments "it is very distracting" and indeed it probably is, because, in this case, the liturgical music is not fulfilling its function of enhancing worship by expressing the word of the liturgy as fully as possible.
Liturgical music should never distract but always strive to draw the faithful deeper into the celebration of the mystery.
Similar to the question on multilingual Masses (see July <> 12) a Los Angeles reader wrote:
"I would like to know, is it permissible to sing several different lines of the Memorial Acclamation over and over. This is done in English and Spanish; we have a bilingual Mass. It seems as though the choir sings for example, 'Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again' and adds lines in between in the other language. If they start it off with Spanish, they intersperse with English. This is very distracting."
The earlier column mentioned that, in general, the mixing of languages in Mass should be reserved for special occasions, limited above all to the Liturgy of the Word. The Common prayers should be said or sung in the prevalent tongue.
We did make an exception for an especially well-orchestrated choral rendition of one of these prayers in another language. But the case mentioned above is somewhat different as it mixes two languages in one piece.
As the Book of Ecclesiastes says: "There is nothing new under the sun" (1:9). The problem of choirs singing in several languages at once was discussed at the Council of Trent and almost led to the prohibition of polyphonic singing during Mass.
The Council Fathers stressed that in liturgy, the word always has priority over the music and the function of liturgical music should always serve to express the word to its greatest advantage.
Some Fathers feared that certain compositions, while beautiful to the ear, encumbered and obscured the word, rendering it unintelligible in a maze of harmonies and counterpoints.
In the end, the work of such great composers as Pierluigi da Palestrina and Tomas Luis de Vitoria saved the day by finding a middle way between intelligibility and musical expressiveness.
It is probable that the above-mentioned mix of Spanish and English in the Memorial Acclamation does not exactly echo de Vitoria and Palestrina. But the principles involved, that of the priority and intelligibility of the word over the music, are the same as those faced by the Tridentine Fathers.
Our reader comments "it is very distracting" and indeed it probably is, because, in this case, the liturgical music is not fulfilling its function of enhancing worship by expressing the word of the liturgy as fully as possible.
Liturgical music should never distract but always strive to draw the faithful deeper into the celebration of the mystery.
posted by Chipi Buenafe at
3:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home