Chanting versus Saying the Eucharistic Prayer
Anglican Brat
Shipmate
When I was a curate, I tried to sing the Sursum Corda, and I was told
"You are not a great singer, it is better to recite it well than sing it terribly."
Which is true, but that resulted in me not practicing at all. My current parish does not have a tradition of the priest chanting the Sursum Corda, but I have been considering introducing it for high feast days. Questions:
1) How common in the Anglican tradition it is for the Eucharistic Prayer to be chanted?
2) Is it worth for priests to at least train to do it?
3) For lay persons, does it make much difference if the prayer is chanted or spoken.
For reference, chanting the Eucharistic Prayer refers to the practice of chanting the prayer up to the Sanctus and Benedictus. I know there are a few places where the entire Eucharistic Prayer is chanted up to the greater doxology, but these are extremely rare.
"You are not a great singer, it is better to recite it well than sing it terribly."
Which is true, but that resulted in me not practicing at all. My current parish does not have a tradition of the priest chanting the Sursum Corda, but I have been considering introducing it for high feast days. Questions:
1) How common in the Anglican tradition it is for the Eucharistic Prayer to be chanted?
2) Is it worth for priests to at least train to do it?
3) For lay persons, does it make much difference if the prayer is chanted or spoken.
For reference, chanting the Eucharistic Prayer refers to the practice of chanting the prayer up to the Sanctus and Benedictus. I know there are a few places where the entire Eucharistic Prayer is chanted up to the greater doxology, but these are extremely rare.
Comments
Now, this Presbyterian really likes chant—when it’s done well. The associate rector chanted well, but the rector chanted with a bit of a twang. At the time I described it as “Conway Twitty does the Eucharistic Prayer,” and I can still hear his “therefore, with angels and archangels,” which even now makes me laugh. It would have been better for him to recite the prayer, which he did quite well otherwise.
So yes, I’d say better to recite well than to chant badly. I’d add that I think singing and chanting or two different skills—related but different. With the caveat that I think it’s approaching sin to tell someone they can’t sing, a child especially, I know people who don't sing (solo) particularly well, but who can chant quite nicely. And I know some excellent singers who aren’t good chanters. (As great as I think Compline from St. Mark’s Episcopal Cathedral in Seattle is, the sometimes have canters who don’t understand or can’t put into practice the difference between singing and chanting.)
It's probably over fifty years since I last encountered it. And then, it was very unusual as in those days the practice in most churches was a said Eucharist at 8 am, 'said' meaning 'said'. Why would anyone want to? Yes. None of us can really speak for anyone else, but I strongly imagine that most people much prefer to be able to follow the words and engage with them in their hearts. I certainly do, which is why I don't like 'turn your back on the congregation, huddle over the altar and mumble'. Chanting was, perhaps, just about, defensible in pre-microphone days when it was a way of using the resonance of a building to disseminate sound. However, it tends just to do that, disseminate sound, not content.
2. Yes, if they have at least some basic singing ability, it's worth learning to chant
3. I like to hear the prayer chanted. For me, it adds to the texture of the service. It's like singing the Gloria - you don't have to sing it, but singing it is just so much better than reciting it.
Needs both skill and understanding to be done well.
Our Gallican practice is to chant the prayer in full as can be seen in this Pontifical Divine Liturgy from last Sunday.
I am not a priest - I am a deacon - but, with the blessing of my bishop, I performed the consecration of the baptismal waters recently with no training (this is the same chant as the Anaphora). It doesn't require training but simple immersion in the tradition. I learnt it from growing up hearing it done Sunday by Sunday, and I feel that the attitude of "do it well or not at all" to be incredibly defeatist, not to mention being a guaranteed way to prevent the tradition from being passed on. It's the same line of reasoning that lies behind "We don't sing that hymn because not many people know it", when the reality is that not many people know it because they've been deprived of the opportunity to hear it sung.
Not everybody has the best voice but most people can be taught how to use their voices to reasonably good effect even if singing doesn't come to them effortlessly. It is better to make the effort than to use the lack of some perceived perfection as an excuse not to bother.
Not everybody has the best voice but most people can be taught how to use their voices to reasonably good effect even if singing doesn't come to them effortlessly. It is better to make the effort than to use the lack of some perceived perfection as an excuse not to bother.[/quote]
True, but that doesn’t mean they should volunteer for the solo, or attempt to lead sung worship or chant something unfamiliar.
As we're discussing the Anaphora, it seems fair to assume that we're discussing people who have already been deemed capable of doing precisely that.
That's fair enough.
In the flavour of Anglicanism in which I grew up in the Caribbean, it simply wouldn't have entered anyone's conciousness to say rather than chant these things - at least not on a Sunday - far less so in my current home.
Based on the posts in this thread, it appears there are a variety of flavors within Anglicanism. I don’t know whether that helps @Anglican Brat or not.
What's happening here is that this thread has raised a fair amount of nostalgia for me, (which has been really quite wonderful in terms of the sequence of YouTube videos it has brought to my screen tonight) but with it has come a reminder of certain unhealthy memories of past defensive arguments that are really my own problem and nobody else's.
In short: I ought not to have involved myself. I'm sorry.
You should bring your best before God. That means that you practice whatever it is you're going to be doing in the service - whether it's chanting the Eucharistic prayer, reading a passage of scripture, or knowing where to stand if you're carrying a torch in the Gospel procession.
And I'll agree that you have to be able to do it at some basic level of competence before it's worth doing. If your choir consists of a half dozen assorted folk who are willing to warble somewhere in the rough vicinity of a tune, then leave the four part harmonies on the shelf.
I know Evangelical priests (especially younger women) who happily wear vestments and encourage the chanting of the Kyrie and Sursum Corda...I wonder if Taize having quite a lot of Evangelical support now amongst younger clergy has influenced this. I also find that this is more common amongst women Evangelical clergy for some reason.
Ime the priest chanting the Sursum Corda alone is common in RC masses even with no choir at all, and many smaller A-C churches reflect that.
Same here (and I remember Series 3 being introduced!). Usual Practice at Our Place is for the Sursum Corda to be sung, but for the rest of the Eucharistic Prayer to be said (Sanctus & Benedictus are sung congregationally, though).
One or two of our visiting priests, when FatherInCharge is on leave, do sing the Preface as well.
I would certainly agree that a sung Sursum Corda is extremely common, but I thought we were primarily discussing the practice of chanting the text read by the celebrant between that and the (also sung) sanctus and benedictus, which is much rarer.
Yes.
I'd hazard a guess (and it's no more than that) that the Preface is chanted in A-C churches which either use the Roman rite complete, or (as we do) use the Roman preface. Some of the C of E prefaces are quite long, and would be a bit of an effort to chant tunefully...
How does that either aid devotion or glorify God?
I will admit to taking a rather extreme position on choir/soloists singing in church. Do it like an angel or do it at home! Just because someone/people want(s) to sing is no reason to make other people listen.
But then you could easily extend to people in the congregation (some people in the congregation can be heard VERY clearly!). Where do you draw the line? Do you tell people in the congregation not to sing if they can't sing in tune?
But members of the congregation aren't putting themselves forward as "ooh listen to me" performers.
Well, quite.
This is definitely not always the case!
Yes, on reflection ........?
Similarly, he always started the Angelus chant far too high, which meant that when he came to the phrase *Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jeeeeeeesus....* he morphed into a sort of screech. Most unedifying.
Current FatherInCharge says the Angelus, which is preferable...
Living in Sydney for all my life, I have pretty good idea of Sydney Anglicanism.
Ugh. What about giving him the benefit of the doubt?
Mind reading--esp. negative reading-- is the downfall of many a parish.
2. The parish has seriously declined under his rectorship, both in numbers and in style of service.
That's strange, my music tutor in seminary told me that most men sing at a baritone voice, or a slightly low tenor voice, and generally speaking most people should be able to match a male priest chanting.
The issue however is with clergy who are sopranos who try to sing the Eucharistic Prayer like they are singing opera.
Have you asked him?
His appointment, and that of a new rector to another non-Sydney parish, are both attributable to the push by the Moore College clique to get rid of the dissenting parishes. As more of those parishes become vacant, there will be more steps taken to push that line. A further example is the election of the new Bishop of Bathurst. That had for many years been a traditional Anglican parish. Sadly, a well-intentioned move pushed the diocese into bankruptcy. Sydney bailed the diocese out, but on condition that ++Sydney vetted the list of candidates for election when the then bishop (one one responsible in any way for the financial mess) retired. Guess what happened.
In my experience, the organist generally provides the pitch to the priest.
And that gets at what I mean about chanting and singing not being the same thing. Related but not the same thing. And I’ve heard male clergy do it too.
The dangerous one to do without the assistance of a musician is the Easter acclamation - the moment of panic when you're into the second "the light of Christ" and can see the third looming up at you just outside your range at 6:00am and knowing there's no way out.
Other things to be really careful pitching for singing unaccompanied: How great thou art, and anything to LONDONDERRY AIR.
What's with the attitude problem? Nowhere did I say that you *weren't* familiar with Sydney Anglicanism, merely pointing out that I *was*. The fact still remains that not chanting the Eucharistic prayer because you don't have a good voice is hardly unique to Sydney Anglicanism, and seems perfectly reasonable. Maybe the problem with your rector is due to your bad-faith assumptions and nasty attitude. You don't have to agree with him on everything to be polite and respectful.
Having tried singing it myself (BBC Proms concert fell on 4th July one year that the choir I was in was taking part) I can well imagine. No wonder congress preferred to break into God Bless America on 9/11.
I have in the past accompanied the priest for the Exultet. It was the only way to keep him somewhere in the correct octave!
On the other hand a young priest came to me for rehearsals before singing the same thing. His was a memorable and moving chanting.
A point maybe to bear in mind is that the Common Worship prefaces are usually longer, some of them much longer, than the BCP ones and that might put off many.
Yes, I have had to do that in the past.