The choir at St Pat’s ( mixed scholars and volunteers )is bloody good and not far off the standard of Sancta Maria ( professional men and scholar boys)
... Zilch congregational singing which was disappointing in a packed cathedral.
Zilch because there weren't any hymns, or because there were, but nobody sang them?
Quite often in cathedrals (where there's usually a decent choir), the congregation doesn't sing. David had a theory that the quality* of congregational singing was in inverse proportion to that of the choir.
... Zilch congregational singing which was disappointing in a packed cathedral.
Zilch because there weren't any hymns, or because there were, but nobody sang them?
Quite often in cathedrals (where there's usually a decent choir), the congregation doesn't sing. David had a theory that the quality* of congregational singing was in inverse proportion to that of the choir.
* and possibly quantity as well
The latter.
I find that Cathedral groupies tend not to sing and it is in fact not encouraged @ Sancta Maria non Immaculata where pewsheets often don’t contain either hymns or chanted responses. However the congregational singing is better at St-Pat’s-in-the West; maybe it is the multi-ethnic makeup of the diocese and the music director’s efforts to encourage congregational singing with choir in plain sight.
Is this an inherently bad thing? If it's what those congregants prefer? Wouldn't be my thing but I sing inside and outside of church anyway - most people don't.
Quite often in cathedrals (where there's usually a decent choir), the congregation doesn't sing. David had a theory that the quality* of congregational singing was in inverse proportion to that of the choir.
Might that be at least partly due to people from the congregation who can sing, and feel confident singing out, being in the choir? I also think it possible that unless there's a fairly full congregation the acoustic of some cathedrals doesn't lend itself to enhancing the congregational singing. I was in such a place on Saturday - small congregation, seated in the round, and people were singing the hymn but the voices were lost and it sounded as though no one was.
I've remembered that last Sunday we also sang Be Unto Your Name. I woke up with it on my mind.
Vatican 2 stated quite baldly that the congregation should participate fully, consciously and actively in worship as a right by reason of their being members of the baptised.
This causes much grief among those musicians who imagine the liturgy should be a sacred concert with a silent audience.
... Zilch congregational singing which was disappointing in a packed cathedral.
Zilch because there weren't any hymns, or because there were, but nobody sang them?
Quite often in cathedrals (where there's usually a decent choir), the congregation doesn't sing. David had a theory that the quality* of congregational singing was in inverse proportion to that of the choir.
... Zilch congregational singing which was disappointing in a packed cathedral.
Zilch because there weren't any hymns, or because there were, but nobody sang them?
Quite often in cathedrals (where there's usually a decent choir), the congregation doesn't sing. David had a theory that the quality* of congregational singing was in inverse proportion to that of the choir.
* and possibly quantity as well
The latter.
I find that Cathedral groupies tend not to sing and it is in fact not encouraged @ Sancta Maria non Immaculata where pewsheets often don’t contain either hymns or chanted responses. However the congregational singing is better at St-Pat’s-in-the West; maybe it is the multi-ethnic makeup of the diocese and the music director’s efforts to encourage congregational singing with choir in plain sight.
Is this an inherently bad thing? If it's what those congregants prefer? Wouldn't be my thing but I sing inside and outside of church anyway - most people don't.
In the mother church of the diocese, indeed, yes.
It perpetuates the problem as to why RCs don’t sing
I think that depends on the cathedral. Some do seem to drop hints that the worship "is to be offered by the choir" - i.e. the rest of you had better keep quiet!
Vatican 2 stated quite baldly that the congregation should participate fully, consciously and actively in worship as a right by reason of their being members of the baptised.
This causes much grief among those musicians who imagine the liturgy should be a sacred concert with a silent audience.
That reasoning would imply that those seeking baptism but not yet baptised specifically should not sing, which sounds wrong to me.
I think that depends on the cathedral. Some do seem to drop hints that the worship "is to be offered by the choir" - i.e. the rest of you had better keep quiet!
But worship =/= singing. Some parts of the worship are always offered only by certain contributors - much of the liturgy, readings, the sermon, the anthem, the voluntary... so it's not a massive difference if the hymns are not sung by all.
I'm not saying it's necessarily a good or better practice, but nor am I convinced it's automatically a bad one.
... Zilch congregational singing which was disappointing in a packed cathedral.
Zilch because there weren't any hymns, or because there were, but nobody sang them?
Quite often in cathedrals (where there's usually a decent choir), the congregation doesn't sing. David had a theory that the quality* of congregational singing was in inverse proportion to that of the choir.
... Zilch congregational singing which was disappointing in a packed cathedral.
Zilch because there weren't any hymns, or because there were, but nobody sang them?
Quite often in cathedrals (where there's usually a decent choir), the congregation doesn't sing. David had a theory that the quality* of congregational singing was in inverse proportion to that of the choir.
* and possibly quantity as well
The latter.
I find that Cathedral groupies tend not to sing and it is in fact not encouraged @ Sancta Maria non Immaculata where pewsheets often don’t contain either hymns or chanted responses. However the congregational singing is better at St-Pat’s-in-the West; maybe it is the multi-ethnic makeup of the diocese and the music director’s efforts to encourage congregational singing with choir in plain sight.
Is this an inherently bad thing? If it's what those congregants prefer? Wouldn't be my thing but I sing inside and outside of church anyway - most people don't.
In the mother church of the diocese, indeed, yes.
It perpetuates the problem as to why RCs don’t sing
That seems circular - "the congregation not singing is bad because congregations should sing".
and a final hymn, which I missed, as I couldn't stand any more...
......
The solemn worship of Almighty God brought down to the level of a children's tea party. Small wonder I don't attend services any more.
While I do understand where you are coming from (and this comment may not really belong in this thread) I do think that there is a place, sometimes at least, for being a bit "naff" and "populist" in church if it helps some people - especially non-regulars - connect with the worship. As it happens I don't know that song ... but I have chosen "Happy Birthday" for a Christmas Day Family Service, and don't regret doing so.
Up to a point, yes, I would agree. It's OK for the liturgy to sometimes be less formal, and more relaxed, but singing *Happy Birthday* to Jesus, and to Mary, not to mention *Happy Resurrection* to Jesus, and *Happy St Patrick's Day* to an Irish family (who left in disgust as a result), make it all a bit OTT.
I think that depends on the cathedral. Some do seem to drop hints that the worship "is to be offered by the choir" - i.e. the rest of you had better keep quiet!
But worship =/= singing. Some parts of the worship are always offered only by certain contributors - much of the liturgy, readings, the sermon, the anthem, the voluntary... so it's not a massive difference if the hymns are not sung by all.
I'm not saying it's necessarily a good or better practice, but nor am I convinced it's automatically a bad one.
I don't know of any cathedral which frowns on congregational singing of the appropriate pieces - hymns, mostly.
I think that depends on the cathedral. Some do seem to drop hints that the worship "is to be offered by the choir" - i.e. the rest of you had better keep quiet!
But worship =/= singing. Some parts of the worship are always offered only by certain contributors - much of the liturgy, readings, the sermon, the anthem, the voluntary... so it's not a massive difference if the hymns are not sung by all.
True, which is why I dislike the phrase one can encounter in churches of my tradition: "Let's have a time of worship", i.e. extended singing. However my comment was a direct reply to BF's above: "IME Anglican cathedral congregations do sing - well, the hymns, anyway".
I think that depends on the cathedral. Some do seem to drop hints that the worship "is to be offered by the choir" - i.e. the rest of you had better keep quiet!
But worship =/= singing. Some parts of the worship are always offered only by certain contributors - much of the liturgy, readings, the sermon, the anthem, the voluntary... so it's not a massive difference if the hymns are not sung by all.
True, which is why I dislike the phrase one can encounter in churches of my tradition: "Let's have a time of worship", i.e. extended singing. However my comment was a direct reply to BF's above: "IME Anglican cathedral congregations do sing - well, the hymns, anyway".
Heh. I dislike that phrase not so much on theological grounds but because it gives me the willies.
Vatican 2 stated quite baldly that the congregation should participate fully, consciously and actively in worship as a right by reason of their being members of the baptised.
This causes much grief among those musicians who imagine the liturgy should be a sacred concert with a silent audience.
That reasoning would imply that those seeking baptism but not yet baptised specifically should not sing, which sounds wrong to me.
Vatican 2 stated quite baldly that the congregation should participate fully, consciously and actively in worship as a right by reason of their being members of the baptised.
This causes much grief among those musicians who imagine the liturgy should be a sacred concert with a silent audience.
That reasoning would imply that those seeking baptism but not yet baptised specifically should not sing, which sounds wrong to me.
I think that is twisting the meaning.
Well, it seems to me that if baptism confers the right to participate fully, and singing is part of that full participation, then the unbaptised have not had that right conferred. That's just logic to me.
Vatican 2 stated quite baldly that the congregation should participate fully, consciously and actively in worship as a right by reason of their being members of the baptised.
This causes much grief among those musicians who imagine the liturgy should be a sacred concert with a silent audience.
That reasoning would imply that those seeking baptism but not yet baptised specifically should not sing, which sounds wrong to me.
I think that is twisting the meaning.
Well, it seems to me that if baptism confers the right to participate fully, and singing is part of that full participation, then the unbaptised have not had that right conferred. That's just logic to me.
I think the reference point of “the right of all the baptized” is “not just the right of the clergy or the professionals.” In other words, it’s about clergy vs laity, not the baptized vs the non-baptized.
Vatican 2 stated quite baldly that the congregation should participate fully, consciously and actively in worship as a right by reason of their being members of the baptised.
This causes much grief among those musicians who imagine the liturgy should be a sacred concert with a silent audience.
That reasoning would imply that those seeking baptism but not yet baptised specifically should not sing, which sounds wrong to me.
I think that is twisting the meaning.
Well, it seems to me that if baptism confers the right to participate fully, and singing is part of that full participation, then the unbaptised have not had that right conferred. That's just logic to me.
I think the reference point of “the right of all the baptized” is “not just the right of the clergy or the professionals.” In other words, it’s about clergy vs laity, not the baptized vs the non-baptized.
I'm too used to reading technical material where things mean precisely what they say.
Vatican 2 stated quite baldly that the congregation should participate fully, consciously and actively in worship as a right by reason of their being members of the baptised.
This causes much grief among those musicians who imagine the liturgy should be a sacred concert with a silent audience.
That reasoning would imply that those seeking baptism but not yet baptised specifically should not sing, which sounds wrong to me.
I think that is twisting the meaning.
Well, it seems to me that if baptism confers the right to participate fully, and singing is part of that full participation, then the unbaptised have not had that right conferred. That's just logic to me.
I think the reference point of “the right of all the baptized” is “not just the right of the clergy or the professionals.” In other words, it’s about clergy vs laity, not the baptized vs the non-baptized.
I'm too used to reading technical material where things mean precisely what they say.
Vatican 2 stated quite baldly that the congregation should participate fully, consciously and actively in worship as a right by reason of their being members of the baptised.
This causes much grief among those musicians who imagine the liturgy should be a sacred concert with a silent audience.
That reasoning would imply that those seeking baptism but not yet baptised specifically should not sing, which sounds wrong to me.
I think that is twisting the meaning.
Well, it seems to me that if baptism confers the right to participate fully, and singing is part of that full participation, then the unbaptised have not had that right conferred. That's just logic to me.
I think the reference point of “the right of all the baptized” is “not just the right of the clergy or the professionals.” In other words, it’s about clergy vs laity, not the baptized vs the non-baptized.
On the nose. Everyone has their rightful role.
Of course the unbaptised used to be dismissed at the end of the liturgy of the Word, before the creed and Eucharistic liturgy.
Vatican 2 stated quite baldly that the congregation should participate fully, consciously and actively in worship as a right by reason of their being members of the baptised.
This causes much grief among those musicians who imagine the liturgy should be a sacred concert with a silent audience.
That reasoning would imply that those seeking baptism but not yet baptised specifically should not sing, which sounds wrong to me.
I think that is twisting the meaning.
Well, it seems to me that if baptism confers the right to participate fully, and singing is part of that full participation, then the unbaptised have not had that right conferred. That's just logic to me.
I think the reference point of “the right of all the baptized” is “not just the right of the clergy or the professionals.” In other words, it’s about clergy vs laity, not the baptized vs the non-baptized.
On the nose. Everyone has their rightful role.
Of course the unbaptised used to be dismissed at the end of the liturgy of the Word, before the creed and Eucharistic liturgy.
Was that all the unbaptised, or only those who were preparing for Baptism at Easter?
Vatican 2 stated quite baldly that the congregation should participate fully, consciously and actively in worship as a right by reason of their being members of the baptised.
This causes much grief among those musicians who imagine the liturgy should be a sacred concert with a silent audience.
That reasoning would imply that those seeking baptism but not yet baptised specifically should not sing, which sounds wrong to me.
I think that is twisting the meaning.
Well, it seems to me that if baptism confers the right to participate fully, and singing is part of that full participation, then the unbaptised have not had that right conferred. That's just logic to me.
I think the reference point of “the right of all the baptized” is “not just the right of the clergy or the professionals.” In other words, it’s about clergy vs laity, not the baptized vs the non-baptized.
On the nose. Everyone has their rightful role.
Of course the unbaptised used to be dismissed at the end of the liturgy of the Word, before the creed and Eucharistic liturgy.
Was that all the unbaptised, or only those who were preparing for Baptism at Easter?
I think early on it was all the unbaptised. Will have to do some reading.
Vatican 2 stated quite baldly that the congregation should participate fully, consciously and actively in worship as a right by reason of their being members of the baptised.
This causes much grief among those musicians who imagine the liturgy should be a sacred concert with a silent audience.
That reasoning would imply that those seeking baptism but not yet baptised specifically should not sing, which sounds wrong to me.
I think that is twisting the meaning.
Well, it seems to me that if baptism confers the right to participate fully, and singing is part of that full participation, then the unbaptised have not had that right conferred. That's just logic to me.
I think the reference point of “the right of all the baptized” is “not just the right of the clergy or the professionals.” In other words, it’s about clergy vs laity, not the baptized vs the non-baptized.
On the nose. Everyone has their rightful role.
Of course the unbaptised used to be dismissed at the end of the liturgy of the Word, before the creed and Eucharistic liturgy.
Was that all the unbaptised, or only those who were preparing for Baptism at Easter?
I think early on it was all the unbaptised. Will have to do some reading.
Only those were baptised were allowed to participate at the eucharist.
That is why before Vatican 2 what is now called the Liturgy of the Word was known as the Mass of the Catechumens,while the present Liturgy of the Sacrament was known as the Mass of the Faithful.
After the time of the Emperor Constantine and greater freedom for Chirstian worship which no longer had to ne held in secret ,catechumens were no longer actually dismissed but there were not allowed to receive Communion,a rule which still officially applies in both the Catholic and Orthodox forms of Christianity.
I think that in certain forms of the Byzantine rite it is still mentioned that the doors should be closed,although they are in fact not closed and anyone who wishes may now remain.
In the modern RC RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) it is assumed that the period of formation will begin at some time before Easter which is when they will be baptised. The Rite includes the dismissal of the catechumens after the homily assuming that their formation will continue immediately in another place.
So in a sense the ancient practice has been revived. The rubrics include the rider that the dismissal should only happen where it is practically and pastorally possible. So it never happens, as far as I know.
... Zilch congregational singing which was disappointing in a packed cathedral.
Zilch because there weren't any hymns, or because there were, but nobody sang them?
Quite often in cathedrals (where there's usually a decent choir), the congregation doesn't sing. David had a theory that the quality* of congregational singing was in inverse proportion to that of the choir.
... Zilch congregational singing which was disappointing in a packed cathedral.
Zilch because there weren't any hymns, or because there were, but nobody sang them?
Quite often in cathedrals (where there's usually a decent choir), the congregation doesn't sing. David had a theory that the quality* of congregational singing was in inverse proportion to that of the choir.
* and possibly quantity as well
The latter.
I find that Cathedral groupies tend not to sing and it is in fact not encouraged @ Sancta Maria non Immaculata where pewsheets often don’t contain either hymns or chanted responses. However the congregational singing is better at St-Pat’s-in-the West; maybe it is the multi-ethnic makeup of the diocese and the music director’s efforts to encourage congregational singing with choir in plain sight.
Is this an inherently bad thing? If it's what those congregants prefer? Wouldn't be my thing but I sing inside and outside of church anyway - most people don't.
In the mother church of the diocese, indeed, yes.
It perpetuates the problem as to why RCs don’t sing
That seems circular - "the congregation not singing is bad because congregations should sing".
Well you admit to reading technical manuals.
No my point is linear not circular. I believe that congregational exclusion ( or non-ecouragement from singing) is bad because it reduces the congregation to observers, with clergy and choir as the participants. Not helped by the presence of well-intentioned stewards ordering the congregation about.
In the modern RC RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) it is assumed that the period of formation will begin at some time before Easter which is when they will be baptised. The Rite includes the dismissal of the catechumens after the homily assuming that their formation will continue immediately in another place.
So in a sense the ancient practice has been revived. The rubrics include the rider that the dismissal should only happen where it is practically and pastorally possible. So it never happens, as far as I know.
I might try some Catholic fudge next Christmas to make a change from the Anglican. Do they do rum and raisin?
In the modern RC RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) it is assumed that the period of formation will begin at some time before Easter which is when they will be baptised. The Rite includes the dismissal of the catechumens after the homily assuming that their formation will continue immediately in another place.
So in a sense the ancient practice has been revived. The rubrics include the rider that the dismissal should only happen where it is practically and pastorally possible. So it never happens, as far as I know.
I might try some Catholic fudge next Christmas to make a change from the Anglican. Do they do rum and raisin?
Lovely hymns today:
The Lord's my Shepherd (Crimond)
Lord of all Hopefulness (Slane)
Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing (Sharon)
Lift High the Cross (Crucifer)
Many years ago I was a visitor to St Paul's Cathedral in London and being a keen (and not too terrible) singer I started to sing what I thought was the congregational hymn of Praise My Soul. I was shocked have a sidesman come up to me and ask me not to sing as the hymns are just for the choir!
The glory of these forty days (Erhalt uns, Herr)
O for a thousand tongues to sing (Azmon)
God of mercy, God of grace (Lucerna Laudoniae)
I want to walk as a child of the light (Houston)
Choral:
Haydn: Missa Sancti Nicolai
Parry: I was glad (rev. 1911)
Lovely hymns today:
The Lord's my Shepherd (Crimond)
Lord of all Hopefulness (Slane)
Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing (Sharon)
Lift High the Cross (Crucifer)
Many years ago I was a visitor to St Paul's Cathedral in London and being a keen (and not too terrible) singer I started to sing what I thought was the congregational hymn of Praise My Soul. I was shocked have a sidesman come up to me and ask me not to sing as the hymns are just for the choir!
Really???
I've never been asked not to sing (hymns anyway) anywhere, not even King's College, Cambridge, which has (probably) the best choir in the world.
Lovely hymns today:
The Lord's my Shepherd (Crimond)
Lord of all Hopefulness (Slane)
Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing (Sharon)
Lift High the Cross (Crucifer)
Many years ago I was a visitor to St Paul's Cathedral in London and being a keen (and not too terrible) singer I started to sing what I thought was the congregational hymn of Praise My Soul. I was shocked have a sidesman come up to me and ask me not to sing as the hymns are just for the choir!
Really???
I've never been asked not to sing (hymns anyway) anywhere, not even King's College, Cambridge, which has (probably) the best choir in the world.
I seem to recall before hearing claims that volunteers at St Paul's (and Westminster Abbey) can be a bit up themselves odd.
Although I will, of course, help in choosing the hymns, I couldn't imagine planning a funeral with a bereaved family and saying, "You can't have that during Lent" or "You can only have that in Advent" etc.
Although I will, of course, help in choosing the hymns, I couldn't imagine planning a funeral with a bereaved family and saying, "You can't have that during Lent" or "You can only have that in Advent" etc.
Surely you would require that they only hum the "Alleluias" during Lent?
Alleluias in Lent?????
Blimey, when I practise Easter stuff at home I do it with my electric piano turned off in case a member of the Liturgy Police is passing by! You can't be too careful.
Anyway ...
Today we will be singing I am the bread of life (Toolan) which I dislike as it always reminds me of those comedy limericks which make a point of having too many syllables in the last line. And it has a ridiculously wide range.
Our offerings at St Pete's this morning for Passion Sunday*
We give immortal praise - Croft's 136th
Psalm 130 - Lord, from the depths I call to you - Martyrdom** Rock of ages, cleft for me - Petra Glory be to Jesus Caswall Lift high the cross (well, bits of it) - Crucifer
* [tangent] Should the vestments have been red today? Ours were still purple, but I seem to recall from my Altar Guild days in Canada that they were red for Passion Sunday. [/tangent]
** to which I gave considerable welly, as metrical psalms, especially ones with good tunes, bring out my latent Presbyterian ...
I wondered a bit about Lift high the cross too, but who am I to argue?
Passion Sunday (Preconciliar) was always purple vestments) and veiling of crucifixes, graven images etc. i recall my confirmation on Passion Sunday ( 8 april 1962 for those who can be bothered) as purple everything. In those days it was white for Palm Sunday but for last 50 years at least it has been red vestments on Passion ( quondam Palm) Sunday.
Before Vatican 2, as sojourner says,this Sunday,the fifth in Lent, was called Passion Sunday
and was the beginning of Passiontide.
since Vatican 2 the Sunday before Easter has had this title,at least in the Roman liturgy.
It is still called by most people Palm Sunday because of the Palm ceremonies which precede the Mass of Passion Sunday. The liturgical colour for this day is red and has been since Vatican 2.
I don't personally remember white vestments on this day but my memories are not always clear.
Traditionally Palm Sunday/now Passion Sunday was the day for confirmations in the German Lutheran church and the newly confirmed would receive the first Communion at Easter.
Some Anglicans (and Scottish Episcopalians )follow the Roman terms and others don't and others are not sure.
Comments
Is this an inherently bad thing? If it's what those congregants prefer? Wouldn't be my thing but I sing inside and outside of church anyway - most people don't.
I've remembered that last Sunday we also sang Be Unto Your Name. I woke up with it on my mind.
This causes much grief among those musicians who imagine the liturgy should be a sacred concert with a silent audience.
In the mother church of the diocese, indeed, yes.
It perpetuates the problem as to why RCs don’t sing
That reasoning would imply that those seeking baptism but not yet baptised specifically should not sing, which sounds wrong to me.
But worship =/= singing. Some parts of the worship are always offered only by certain contributors - much of the liturgy, readings, the sermon, the anthem, the voluntary... so it's not a massive difference if the hymns are not sung by all.
I'm not saying it's necessarily a good or better practice, but nor am I convinced it's automatically a bad one.
That seems circular - "the congregation not singing is bad because congregations should sing".
Up to a point, yes, I would agree. It's OK for the liturgy to sometimes be less formal, and more relaxed, but singing *Happy Birthday* to Jesus, and to Mary, not to mention *Happy Resurrection* to Jesus, and *Happy St Patrick's Day* to an Irish family (who left in disgust as a result), make it all a bit OTT.
I don't know of any cathedral which frowns on congregational singing of the appropriate pieces - hymns, mostly.
Heh. I dislike that phrase not so much on theological grounds but because it gives me the willies.
I think that is twisting the meaning.
Well, it seems to me that if baptism confers the right to participate fully, and singing is part of that full participation, then the unbaptised have not had that right conferred. That's just logic to me.
I'm too used to reading technical material where things mean precisely what they say.
People v machines?
On the nose. Everyone has their rightful role.
Of course the unbaptised used to be dismissed at the end of the liturgy of the Word, before the creed and Eucharistic liturgy.
Was that all the unbaptised, or only those who were preparing for Baptism at Easter?
I think early on it was all the unbaptised. Will have to do some reading.
That is why before Vatican 2 what is now called the Liturgy of the Word was known as the Mass of the Catechumens,while the present Liturgy of the Sacrament was known as the Mass of the Faithful.
After the time of the Emperor Constantine and greater freedom for Chirstian worship which no longer had to ne held in secret ,catechumens were no longer actually dismissed but there were not allowed to receive Communion,a rule which still officially applies in both the Catholic and Orthodox forms of Christianity.
I think that in certain forms of the Byzantine rite it is still mentioned that the doors should be closed,although they are in fact not closed and anyone who wishes may now remain.
So in a sense the ancient practice has been revived. The rubrics include the rider that the dismissal should only happen where it is practically and pastorally possible. So it never happens, as far as I know.
Well you admit to reading technical manuals.
No my point is linear not circular. I believe that congregational exclusion ( or non-ecouragement from singing) is bad because it reduces the congregation to observers, with clergy and choir as the participants. Not helped by the presence of well-intentioned stewards ordering the congregation about.
I might try some Catholic fudge next Christmas to make a change from the Anglican. Do they do rum and raisin?
Whatever flavour tickles your fancy.
The Lord's my Shepherd (Crimond)
Lord of all Hopefulness (Slane)
Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing (Sharon)
Lift High the Cross (Crucifer)
Many years ago I was a visitor to St Paul's Cathedral in London and being a keen (and not too terrible) singer I started to sing what I thought was the congregational hymn of Praise My Soul. I was shocked have a sidesman come up to me and ask me not to sing as the hymns are just for the choir!
The glory of these forty days (Erhalt uns, Herr)
O for a thousand tongues to sing (Azmon)
God of mercy, God of grace (Lucerna Laudoniae)
I want to walk as a child of the light (Houston)
Choral:
Haydn: Missa Sancti Nicolai
Parry: I was glad (rev. 1911)
Really???
I've never been asked not to sing (hymns anyway) anywhere, not even King's College, Cambridge, which has (probably) the best choir in the world.
I seem to recall before hearing claims that volunteers at St Paul's (and Westminster Abbey) can be a bit up themselves odd.
St Paul's more so than the Abbey, in my experience.
“Jesus Christ Is Risen Today”/EASTER HYMN
“I Am the Bread of Life”/I AM THE BREAD
“Lift High the Cross”/CRUCIFER
Lift high the Cross? Maundy Thursday or the Exaltation of the Cross ( 14 Sept)?
But what would I know, a retired Roman who hung out with Anglo Catholics….
Surely you would require that they only hum the "Alleluias" during Lent?
Blimey, when I practise Easter stuff at home I do it with my electric piano turned off in case a member of the Liturgy Police is passing by! You can't be too careful.
Anyway ...
Today we will be singing I am the bread of life (Toolan) which I dislike as it always reminds me of those comedy limericks which make a point of having too many syllables in the last line. And it has a ridiculously wide range.
Not a paid up liturgy policewoman meself ( alas) but truly have heard some bloopers sung out of context.
Personal favourite is the tale of the bridezilla who demanded the Allegri Miserere at her wedding “ for the high notes”.😬
We give immortal praise - Croft's 136th
Psalm 130 - Lord, from the depths I call to you - Martyrdom**
Rock of ages, cleft for me - Petra
Glory be to Jesus Caswall
Lift high the cross (well, bits of it) - Crucifer
* [tangent] Should the vestments have been red today? Ours were still purple, but I seem to recall from my Altar Guild days in Canada that they were red for Passion Sunday. [/tangent]
** to which I gave considerable welly, as metrical psalms, especially ones with good tunes, bring out my latent Presbyterian ...
I wondered a bit about Lift high the cross too, but who am I to argue?
and was the beginning of Passiontide.
since Vatican 2 the Sunday before Easter has had this title,at least in the Roman liturgy.
It is still called by most people Palm Sunday because of the Palm ceremonies which precede the Mass of Passion Sunday. The liturgical colour for this day is red and has been since Vatican 2.
I don't personally remember white vestments on this day but my memories are not always clear.
Traditionally Palm Sunday/now Passion Sunday was the day for confirmations in the German Lutheran church and the newly confirmed would receive the first Communion at Easter.
Some Anglicans (and Scottish Episcopalians )follow the Roman terms and others don't and others are not sure.