Non Solum: Gloria at Weddings

A Pray Tell reader writes in:

In the Roman Missal, Third Edition, the rubrics call for more frequent use of the Gloria than previously. I am wondering how parishes are addressing the addition of the Gloria in the Rite of Marriage. My experience is that many or most couples are not interested in including this piece. Pastorally, how would one address the issue? Would you choose to speak it, given the challenges in sung participation at weddings? Or would you have it led by songleader/cantor?  Or would you *gasp* not mention anything and just go on as before, with no mention of its inclusion when planning the wedding liturgy with a couple?

The reader adds honestly: “I have not encountered the Gloria in a wedding once since the Missal’s debut. I don’t *gasp* mention it when I am planning with a couple, nor have I been asked to sing it when they are planning with someone else. Bless me, friends, for I have (liturgically) sinned…”

Thoughts?

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, is a monk of St. John's Abbey. He teaches liturgy, liturgical music, and Gregorian chant at St. John's University School of Theology-Seminary. He is widely published and frequently presents across the country on liturgy and music. He is the author of Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform: Treasures and Transformations, and of Responsorial Psalms for Weekday Mass: Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter. He does priestly ministry at the neighboring community of Benedictine sisters in St. Joseph.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

40 responses to “Non Solum: Gloria at Weddings”

  1. John Drake

    I have attended three weddings at which the Gloria was sung, fairly robustly, by the congregation. Why wouldn’t a Catholic couple want it?

    Reply
  2. Paul Inwood

    On other forums, there has been much discussion of this, and I have the impression that musicians are doing the Gloria at Nuptial Mass (not outside Mass, of course), having told couples that this is what the Church’s rites now ask for. The problem, of course, is finding a wedding-congregation-friendly setting since settings like the Salazar Gloria are now outlawed.

    On a related point, there are some dioceses where policy is that for all weddings a cantor (NB: not a soloist, but a song-leader) is to be hired in addition to an organist. (Of course, there is nothing to prevent a cantor singing a solo piece too, but the primary role is one of eliciting sung participation by groups of people many of whom may be unchurched.) Once you have a cantor, then the possibilities for assembly singing at a wedding are vastly increased.

    Reply
    1. Elisabeth Ahn

      @Paul Inwood – comment #3:

      “there are some dioceses where policy is that for all weddings a cantor (NB: not a soloist, but a song-leader) is to be hired in addition to an organist.”

      Really? What is the rationale behind such policy, and what happens if the couple cannot afford to “hire” either?

      Reply
      1. Todd Flowerday

        @Elisabeth Ahn – comment #10:
        I can’t speak for Paul or his diocese, but in my various parishes, the pastors and I were always committed to providing good liturgical music for funerals and weddings, regardless of the people’s ability to pay.

        Sometimes the couple insists on no singer. Then it becomes a dialogue, and sometimes no singer is the result.

  3. Kevin Vogt

    We have been sing the Gloria at the Nuptial Mass since the implementation of the MR3 translation. Our parish has been singing the same through-composed setting since then (mine, which is hardly sung anywhere else). We have at least a cantor and an organist at each wedding, and there often is at least a small number of our parishioners in attendance. The congregation is provided with an Order of Mass booklet which contains the Mass ordinary settings we use, and when Protestants are also in attendance they seem to read and sing along. We have also made available the possibility of a small choir (8 professional singers) for a flat fee. It only took one or two weddings with a choir for the idea to spread. This certainly adds to the festivity and makes all of the communal expressions more vigorous.

    Reply
  4. Mark Kieffer

    Actually I did a bit of research on this topic about a year ago. The Gloria was included in the rubrics for the nuptial Mass in the provisional translations that appeared right after the council. Then when the “official” translation appeared the Gloria rubric was gone. I can see the rational for including it on a liturgical level seeing as the nuptial Mass is a “white vestment” liturgy. That said, on a pastoral level I don’t see it catching on in the US except in those places where a rubrically minded pastor insists on it. In those places I suspect it will more often than not either be recited by the presider and a handful of those present who are regular attenders of Mass OR sung largely as a solo by the cantor.

    Every now and then I encounter a couple who are liturgically aware and really want to celebrate their wedding with assembly participation. In those cases I might encourage the singing of the Gloria as well as encouraging congregational music for the offertory and communion.

    The quality of assembly participation in most of the nuptial Masses in which I am the music minister is lackluster at best. I can also say that with over 20 years of experience in ministry, regardless of how skilled the cantor and instrumentalists are, the warm invitation to participation by the presider is by far the most influential factor in assembly participation.

    Reply
  5. Todd Flowerday

    It makes sense for a Catholic couple’s wedding at which a participating Catholic community is present. For a wedding at Sunday Mass surely. I went to a friend’s wedding last summer in which the Gloria was omitted from the program but it was played and sung by the choir anyway. I told my wife some priest probably laid down the law.

    I don’t think it adds anything to the wedding Mass for non-participating gatherings. It might be more of a detraction: another solo piece, another awkward ritual moment with little or no meaning for most present. Getting guests to recite it makes as much sense as asking them to recite the Creed.

    Reply
    1. Michelle Francl-Donnay

      @Todd Flowerday – comment #6:
      The Creed used to make sense in such gatherings as in times past we essentially shared a translation of the Creed with our Protestant sisters and brothers. No longer.

      Reply
      1. John Kohanski

        @Michelle Francl-Donnay – comment #7:
        Michelle–you’re right, if they were Episcopalians (used to using Rite II), Lutherans, and maybe some Methodists. Beyond that, most Protestants, in my experience, don’t know or use the Nicene creed in their services.
        And with either the older version or the newer version of the Nicene Creed, the Roman Church was not and is not sharing a translation with any of the Orthodox Churches (or for that matter any of the Eastern Catholic Churches that Rome is in communion with), which is a far greater problem.

  6. Martin Badenhorst OP

    Mea maxima culpa. On the other hand a great deal of time is spent in adjusting the celebration to express Christian Marriage; i.e. gently discouraging the choice of Ms Gaga’s latest piped through the PA or informing the couple that the Lloyd-Weber Pie Jesu does have another context.

    Reply
    1. Will Elliott

      @Martin Badenhorst OP – comment #8:
      “Pie Jesu does have another context” — this reminds me of a wedding which had “On Eagle’s Wings” among the musical selections because it was the favorite hymn of one of the mothers of the couple. I would have thought the “another context” for that one would have been more obvious.

      Reply
      1. Todd Flowerday

        @Will Elliott – comment #29:
        Lent?

  7. John Wilkins

    Martin Badenhorst OP : informing the couple that the Lloyd-Weber Pie Jesu does have another context.

    Well, you could debate that it’s still appropriate for weddings given the lack of rest in a proportion of marriages!!!

    The Salazar Gloria may not be permitted any more but there are many others that have been adapted for the New Translation, e.g. Lourdes.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Ron Krisman

      @John Wilkins – comment #9:

      I don’t understand your second paragraph about “many others that have been adapted for the New Translation [sic], e.g. Lourdes.” What is the Lourdes Gloria? And could you give a few more examples from the “many others”?

      Reply
      1. Patrick Logsdon

        @Fr. Ron Krisman – comment #11:
        here is a you tube of the lourdes gloria (in latin, but is done in most languages)

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUCsB3w6_-M

      2. John Wilkins

        @Fr. Ron Krisman – comment #11:
        The so called Lourdes Gloria is a setting by Jean Paul Lecot popular at Lourdes. The approved English setting (Latin refrain, English verses) can be found in “Sing the Mass”, an anthology prepared by the Irish National Centre for Liturgy, in association with the Advisory Committee on Church Music of the Bishops’ Conference of Ireland. You can find videos, though not in English, if you search on ‘chants de Lourdes Gloria’.

        Other revised Gloria settings in use here in England are Francis Duffy’s Gloria for cantor & congregation and Peter Jones’ Coventry Gloria. I can’t speak for the USA but I see that the OCP site lists 14 ‘revised’ Mass Settings on its ‘Mass Setting’ link.

  8. Andrew rex

    I was at a wedding (outside of mass) in Ireland last summer, both the invitation to the penitential rite (‘… as we prepare to celebrate the sacred mysteries…’), penitential rite and gloria were included. The priest also wore a chausable. In fact, it was an ordinary mass up to the homily. I’ve been to quite a few catholic wedding services that have been like this. I’d be happy enough if priests could distinguish between what is and is not a mass, maybe when they’ve grasped this principle we can start considering other matters!

    Reply
  9. Gerry Davila

    We sung it at our wedding in July 2011. I composed an entire Ordinary. My brothers sang it, accompanied by organ.

    Reply
  10. Scott Pluff

    I usually encourage the inclusion of a gathering hymn at weddings immediately following the procession. I especially suggest this for weddings without the Mass, to help fill out the ceremony a bit. About half of the couples take me up on this suggestion.

    I suppose the gloria could serve the same purpose, i.e. engaging the assembly in singing right from the start to set the tone for the rest of the service. Unfortunately, there is not a single setting of the Gloria universally known by all Catholics, much less by Protestants. Asking people to sing something they have never heard will not work, and will instead squash their fledgling participation for the rest of the service. Singing “Hear Us Now, Our God and Father” set to the tune Hyfrydol will be a much easier sell than any Gloria.

    Reply
  11. Scott Pluff

    Here’s an interesting question I was asked by a colleague once. Why must we ask any wedding couple or funeral family to choose the readings and music? When my parents were married, they were not asked to choose anything, nor would they have thought to make such a request. Fifty years later, it’s assumed that the participants get to make these choices, whether or not they have any knowledge or familiarity with the liturgy.

    When I work with a couple who are active members of our parish, or at least are familiar with Catholic liturgy, it can be a great experience. But for roughly half of Catholic weddings, I get the idea that the couple and their families and guests have not seen the inside of a church for many years. These folks often have little to no interest in the details of the ceremony beyond the Celine Dion or Josh Groban song they want sung with the unity candle. Why do we expect these people to plan the ceremony? Just because it’s “their special day” or because they are “paying customers?”

    Lord, I’m sounding old and crabby! I’ll stop now.

    Reply
  12. Jack Feehily

    If you’re talking about the occasional wedding Mass at which practicing Catholics are present in some abundance, the singing of the Gloria might be considered. I’m always a little shocked when the couple wishes to invite a significant number of parishioners. For the most part, weddings are family rites which we require to be held in the church. I’ve had some beautiful celebrations of faithful followers of Christ. The more common experience is that sufficient faith has been called forth from the couple so that the prayers and rites make sense.

    Reply
  13. Jeremy Helmes

    +1, Scott. I often wonder how we got to this point where we invite people with no liturgical training, some of whom barely come to Mass (Christmas maybe), to prepare the Church’s liturgy.

    The best approach seems to be one where faithful and engaged people can exercise more preferences in preparing the wedding or funeral liturgy, which will likely be derived from Sunday Mass. And for those bereaved families or engaged couples who are nearly completely disconnected from the life of the Church, there is more discretion for the liturgist/musician/bereavement minister.

    For example, in preparing wedding Masses, I propose a few Communion professionals, but also “permit” anything done at our Sunday Masses (we have a pretty narrow repertoire of about 10 pieces in varying styles/formats). I can tell quickly who’s actually been to Mass recently if they suggest one of those that they really like…

    Not sure when engaging the faithful in preparing these “special” liturgies became a “blank check”?!?

    Reply
  14. Jeremy Helmes

    Oh, and to the original thread prompt: we have been ignoring the rubric about the Gloria. No one seems to notice or care. And if a couple of regular Mass -going Catholics wanted to sing the Gloria and the assembly was “churched” I would do it in a heartbeat. Haven’t had that scenario yet in 2 years. Have done Gloria upon request in pre-MR3 wedding Masses. Was sung at my own wedding in 2002.

    Reply
    1. Bernadette Gasslein

      @Jeremy Helmes – comment #21:
      My experience would closely resemble Jeremy’s. The vast majority of couples who marry in the church here are ecumenical, with a growing number of inter-faith couples. Therefore, the majority of weddings are celebrated within a Liturgy of the Word, not within the Eucharist. The majority of Catholic couples are pretty unchurched. Most have little to no idea of what the Catholic liturgy looks like. Many come with an over-riding concern: “How long will it last?” (the shorter the better – they have places to go and things to do!) Like Jeremy, I wouldn’t hesitate to sing the Gloria at the wedding Mass of a couple of “regular Mass-going Catholics,” but that scenario is pretty uncommon. Even more challenging is the fact that the assembly is pretty much as unchurched as the couples. This is often the case, even if the couple is involved in the local parish a bit. Whether led by a cantor or choir or “group,” the Gloria turns into a long solo. Furthermore, there simply is no common repertoire of hymns/liturgical music that most couples can call on that the assembly can sing – and that includes the Gloria.

      Reply
  15. Jack Rakosky

    This discussion, like many discussions of weddings, seems to be bogged down in rubrics, the preferences of the ministers, and the preferences of the bridal party. This discussion needs the larger perspective of evangelization: Catholics may choose not to get married in the church nor to baptize their children. We no longer have a captive market for weddings and baptisms.

    1. Francis says we are seen as a church obsessed with rules. No matter how much good publicity he gets what really matters is what happens in the parish at things such as weddings. So the first question that ministers must ask themselves is “How can we avoid being perceived as administering rules whether of our own making or that of the church?”.

    2. Francis has also made it clear that in evangelization we are always in dialog with people and must begin with their viewpoint (based on solid Jesuit spirituality: “we go in their door so they we come out our door”). Ministers have to begin with the bridal party ‘s viewpoint.

    3. Ministers need to think about the marriage not as an event in the middle of the lives of two people but as the beginning of the next generation of hopefully baptized children.

    That folks is no longer assured as CARA research has recently given us the alert

    http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-growing-mystery-of-missing-catholic.html

    This research is not random sample research; it based on total population data for baptisms and births. The Catholic population which for a long time has been at 25% of the national population is down to 20% at the level of infant baptisms in comparison to births. It is highly likely that some Catholics are choosing not to baptize their children as infants.

    CARA is very sure about this trend although very unsure of the explanations. Coupled with the declining ability of the Catholicism to retain adults (down from 88% in 1973 to 68% in 2007) it spells potential deep trouble for the future. This is the same CARA which has in the past reassured us not to worry so much about all the Catholics leaving the church, that we remain stable at 25% of the population not only because of immigration but also because Catholics come back.

    In other words the marriage is no longer just about the ministers and the wedding party. Actually It should never have been. Rather weddings and baptisms are the front line of evangelization. Birth rates and baptism are far more important than conversions for the future of any denomination.

    Reply
  16. Jack Rakosky

    In their recent follow up on declining baptims CARA has further localized the problem in the growing churches in the suburbs,the South and West where the number of Catholics per parish are very high.

    http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2014/01/daily-double-infant-baptisms-and.html

    They obviously have many marriages and baptisms; pastors and pastoral staff likely have little time or motivation to see how many Catholics are not choosing to get married in the church and to not have their infants baptized.

    This suggests a second needed larger perspective, namely marriage and baptisms need to be central to lives of parish members not simply to parish ministers.

    There are many ways to do that. Let me elaborate on one suggestion: an unpaid Marriage and Baptism Choir, There are many people in large parishes with strong music interests who don’t want to commit themselves to a night of practice nine months a year plus a specific mass time every weekend. They could practice a limited repertory during the summer and/or monthly meeting. Marriages and baptisms are predictable well in advance.

    In regard to marriages, the policy would be that if marriage partners choose from the Marriage Choir repertory only the choir leader and accompanist get paid. If they want selections beyond there should be a wide variety of music groups and musicians in the parish and other neighboring parishes for a fee.

    Some parishes are doing more and more baptisms during weekend liturgy. Unfortunately they have little or no special music. The Marriage and Baptismal choir needs to change that. Indeed the high quality of Weekend liturgy baptisms should become a prime motivation for Catholics to choose to marry and baptize their children in the church. Priests need to make the family, the infant and baptism rather than a homily upon the readings the introduction and prelude to Eucharist!!! Yes baptism is the foundation of Christian life!!! Everyone should look forward to celebrating baptisms at Weekend Liturgies, making them little Easters in quality but not length.

    Of course in the spirit of dialogue, families should be permitted to have their infants baptized before or after Weekend liturgies with the understanding they do not have to participate in that particular liturgy but that the Baptism choir will sing for the baptism and parish members are welcome to attend these baptisms.

    All baptisms and weddings should be parish events; the Marriage and Baptism Choir should be seen as ambassadors of the larger parish community witnessing the importance of marriage, children and baptism to the parish.

    Reply
  17. Sean Whelan

    I can appreciate the previous comments about being bogged down in rubrics. However, it’s what we’re tasked with, and the book says to sing the Gloria at a wedding Mass, so who am I to argue? The parish wedding policy book is pretty clear on the planning – Mother Church has planned the liturgy, we just need to look over the approved options.

    When I meet with them, I tell the couple that here is where we stand… think of a Sunday liturgy and we go from there. You can have your processionals and such, but there is a gathering song. There is a Gloria. By default, I use Creation, but had a request for Mass of the Sacred Heart (Booth) – they were from Timothy Smith’s parish, and Mass of Saint Ann (Bolduc, through-composed setting) Most of the time people sing well. Yes, there are times when they don’t – do we toss out the Sanctus or Lamb of God because they won’t? No. The only problem I have with the Gloria is a lack of intro. With the penitential act omitted, there’s no strong lead into it. I crafted a little paragraph which the priest uses to offer some help, but I do hope the revised Marriage rite has solved this.

    We insist on a cantor. If the couple is cash-strapped, we work around that. Here, the cantor serves almost as a commentator as well. They gesture the assembly when to stand/sit/kneel and they “assist” with spoken responses. Will this work for every parish? No. But it works here. Weddings have greatly improved participation-wise and are less and less the couple’s special day and a bit more of the whole community in celebration.

    Reply
    1. Elisabeth Ahn

      @Sean Whelan – comment #24:

      “I can appreciate the previous comments about being bogged down in rubrics. However, it’s what we’re tasked with… The parish wedding policy book is pretty clear on the planning – Mother Church has planned the liturgy, we just need to look over the approved options.”

      So, you see your main task as that of “looking over the approved liturgy” options” to make sure all the rules and regulations indicated therein are followed at the wedding?

      Sorry, but that’s really.. um, sad.

      @ Scott Pluff — comment #18

      I know, right? How dare those people choose to get married at church after “not having seen the inside of a church for many years”! How dare they who obviously do not have “any knowledge or familiarity with the liturgy” have an opinion, and about their own wedding no less!

      Good lord, now I’m sounding old and crabby, but really, is it any wonder why fewer and fewer couples decide to marry in church?

      Which is to say: I fully agree with Jack Rakosky @ comment #22.

      Reply
      1. Scott Pluff

        @Elisabeth Ahn – comment #25:
        Elisabeth, very good point. I try to make one of the hallmarks of my pastoral ministry reaching out to welcome strangers, guests and visitors to the house of the Lord.

        But imagine if someone invited you to their house for dinner. A week in advance, they hand you a cookbook and ask you to plan the menu, and assign the seating at the table, and choose from among 12 options for saying grace. Would that make you feel more welcome, since they are letting you plan the whole evening? Or might you feel burdened by all this added work? It would be more welcoming to simply ask if they prefer beef, chicken or fish, and if they have any dietary restrictions. This can be done without a 90-minute meeting to go over every detail.

      2. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        @Scott Pluff – comment #38:
        I think of the ceremony planning session more as the first stage of the rehearsal, so that the couple will feel comfortable during the ceremony. I used to have them choose opening prayers, nuptial blessings, etc. but I discovered that most of them had no opinion on these things. So now I simply choose the options that seem to me most suitable. If someone expressed a strong preference in this regard I would certainly go with that.

        I do have them choose the form of vows and the readings and I try to get them to talk about why they chose the readings they did so I can incorporate this into my homily.

      3. Elisabeth Ahn

        @Scott Pluff – comment #38:

        I don’t understand your dinner invitation analogy. Who is the “someone/they” giving out the invitation (the engaged couple? the priest?), and who is “you” being invited (guests?)?

        Regardless, thank you for your ministry that endeavors to welcome in and reach out, which I fully understand is not easy. After all, weddings do often bring out the crazy in people, and I doubt church weddings are any different.

        @Fritz Bauerschmidt — comment #39:

        Yeah but, what about Gloria?

        😀

        Your approach is lovely, especially this:

        “I do have them choose the form of vows and the readings and I try to get them to talk about why they chose the readings they did so I can incorporate this into my homily.”

        Does the wedding liturgy “rule book” come with a practical and pastoral guidebook for wedding planning also? Cause if not, you should write one!

  18. Alan Johnson

    The problem for us is that we have very few weddings, just one or two a year, and most of them are of unchurched people of whom one or maybe both were baptised as infants. Maybe their parents acquiesced to grannies tribal/ethnic promptings and sent them to a catholic primary school. And that is where their knowledge has remained …. at the level of an eleven year old. Knowledge of both their faith and of hymns and songs. Chances are that 90% of the congregation will be totally clueless.
    Yet there is still something there to prompt them to get married in Church, even if it is just that “Father” talked to them about it during baptism preparation for their child/ren.
    Do we really get all stuffed shirt about making sure that this or that part fo the liturgy is included in these circumstances so that the correct rubrics are observed?
    I rather think not.

    Reply
  19. Sean Whelan

    Well, Elizabeth, thank you for your fine critique.

    In case I was understood incorrectly, the options I go over are the presidential prayers, scripture readings, possible bidding prayers, blessings, and so forth – the parts of the Mass where options exist.

    Why is it “sad” that I tell the couple that the liturgy, for the most part, is planned? To me, it simplifies things – for everyone involved.

    Elisabeth Ahn : @Sean Whelan – comment #24: “I can appreciate the previous comments about being bogged down in rubrics. However, it’s what we’re tasked with… The parish wedding policy book is pretty clear on the planning – Mother Church has planned the liturgy, we just need to look over the approved options.” So, you see your main task as that of “looking over the approved liturgy” options” to make sure all the rules and regulations indicated therein are followed at the wedding? Sorry, but that’s really.. um, sad. @ Scott Pluff — comment #18 I know, right? How dare those people choose to get married at church after “not having seen the inside of a church for many years”! How dare they who obviously do not have “any knowledge or familiarity with the liturgy” have an opinion, and about their own wedding no less! Good lord, now I’m sounding old and crabby, but really, is it any wonder why fewer and fewer couples decide to marry in church? Which is to say: I fully agree with Jack Rakosky @ comment #22.

    Reply
    1. Elisabeth Ahn

      @Sean Whelan – comment #27:

      “Why is it “sad” that I tell the couple that the liturgy, for the most part, is planned? To me, it simplifies things – for everyone involved.”

      Well, if you put it that way, of course that is not sad.

      It is sad, however, when the minsters who are in charge of such planning focus primarily, if not exclusively, on following THE rules, and little else, which is how I (mis)read your earlier post.

      And it is even sadder, if not madder(!), when such focusing is — as it often happens — accompanied by certain, snotty and nasty, judgmental attitudes.

      Yeah, I find both these instances, which I’ve had the misfortune to experience directly at my father’s funeral, quite sad.

      Anyway, I wasn’t critiquing your post; just expressing sadness. 🙂

      Reply
  20. Bryon Gordon

    I think it makes total sense to recite, preferably sing, the Gloria at nuptial and funeral Masses. It seems appropriate especially at these liminal moments in disciples’ lives.

    Reply
    1. Fritz Bauerschmidt

      @Bryon Gordon – comment #28:
      The funeral Mass has its own distinctive entrance rite, doesn’t it, which involves the reception of the remains at the Church and makes no provision for the Gloria (nor, I think, for the penitential rite or Kyrie)?

      Reply
  21. Ann Olivier

    My interest in the form of the Mass isn’t pastoral, obviously, it’s aesthetic. Here’s my question:

    If the Mass is (among other things) a living art work offered to the Lord, and if all art requires order (i.e., rules), then can the rubrics (i.e., the rules), be less than very important?

    Surely it’s the very beauty of the Mass ritual that attracts badly catechized people who just want to celebrate their wedding beautifully. So where does stuffiness set in when questions of the rules arise? Are the rules like a symphonic score which allows some improvisation?

    Reply
  22. Mark Kieffer

    Somehow, at this hour of the night, after reading all of the thoughts about this post I am more compelled by the idea that Jesus’ first miracle was at a wedding. It involved alcohol and mentions nothing of whether the Gloria was included or not.

    Reply
  23. Fr. Jack Feehily

    I’ve never used the gloria at weddings and can’t really imagine doing so. Let’s keep in mind that the “rubrics” also call for nourishing the assembly from the gifts they offer at each Mass. And for the priest to use more bread-like bread, big enough to be broken into pieces that can be distributed into the dishes from which the people will be fed. I don’t know that a lot of today’s rubricians are following either of those directives. These are also priests who are still using a paten for their “personal” host and surrounding it with cups and dishes that obscure the symbolism of one bread, one cup.

    Reply
  24. Matthew J. Meloche

    We have Gloria VIII from the Iubilate Deo and the Gloria from the Missal – two settings that can be sung in almost no-time (taking them at a good clip). Every Catholic in the world is supposed to know Gloria VIII as per the wishes of Pope Paul VI and John Paul II. I see no good reason not to do Gloria VIII at every wedding – and if the couple (or celebrant) objects to the use of Latin chant, we have the ICEL Gloria which can be sung quite nicely.

    My wedding was during a Sunday Mass and I was shocked at how well the congregation sang Credo III. The Gloria was polyphonic, but I wonder to this day if they would have sang Gloria VIII as well as they sang the Creed.

    Reply

Posted

in

, ,

by

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading