SPEAKING AND SINGING

A case is frequently made, that as the laity have always been permitted to sing the High Mass it is logical that they should be allowed to make the responses at Low Mass. As this seems reasonable, we may well wonder why, until the 20th century, this was never done or even encouraged ANYWHERE. The idea sometimes expressed, that it was the result of persecution in anti-Catholic countries is a fallacy. Dialogue Mass was quite as unknown in the Papal States as in the Ireland of penal times! Indeed, the fact that Sung Mass (Missa Cantata) only appeared in the 18th century and bilingual missals for laity in the 19th suggests that the idea of active lay participation - if such an idea existed at the time - was , in fact, discouraged. That this state of affairs existed for more than 1000 years must surely mean that it cannot be considered merely as an abuse as the result of neglect of the laity by the popes and ecclesiastical authorities.

This being so, it must have stemmed from the fact that it is never necessary to state the obvious. It is only when things become obscured that it is necessary to explain their meaning. No doubt Christ's sacrifice in the Mass is indeed a prayer - even the highest prayer which exists - but a distinction must be made. The liturgy of the Church had always been understood as a common ACT i.e. the physical presence of the ritualised sacrifice of Calvary rather than an exercise of Common prayer.

There is a very significant difference between singing and speaking in a language which one does not understand. The music itself is a profound expression of the soul and the meaning of the individual words which are sung is often secondary. It is sufficient to consider that a person ignorant of the Italian language might happily listen to an opera in that language but would certainly hesitate to listen to a play. Indeed, raising the mind and heart to God is the very essence and definition of prayer which need not be synonymous with an exercise of the vocal chords.

 A final reason why vocal participation was never encouraged, particularly after the Tridentine Missal was promulgated, was the danger that such participation would demonstrate similarities to Protestant worship and the likely conclusion that intelligent spoken participation would produce a demand for vernacular for it is plain that having a spoken dialogue in a language which one does not understand, without the dimension of music mentioned above, rather begs the use of the vernacular. Later history was to prove that these concerns were entirely justified.