Is it super hard to sing the Gospel in a psalm tone and being heard without a microphone? Does this mean that before the mic was invented people back in the church could not hear the Gospel or the Priest or Deacon preaching?
Some opera singers say they are not trained to speak but only to sing. They find talking with real power hard. I guess a Priest would find singing the homily with power much easiet which it is. My vocal teacher told me he has heard people sing the homily but I did not ask when he heard it. It could have been in a Catholic or Lutheran church.

Most places aren't designed for acoustics, sad to say. Talking with power is hard.

In pre-Vatican II days, the Gospel wasn't read for the congregation hear anyhow (though it may have happened sometimes).

It might be read in vernacular at the pulpit before the sermon.

Anyway, older churches probably have better acoustics overall - no sound killing carpet, for one.

So newer churches are build with no good acustics in mind line in the older days?
People actually thought about acoustics in the old days?
Anyway, I think using psalm tones no mic is needed.

Why wasn't it read for the congregation?
Even today if a Priests say the OF alone he does not read it for a congregation.
I guess there are are resons for reading it.

Without microphones, a speaker would have to speak aloud.

Many churches nowadays have a better sound system with some sound speakers spread throughout the building.

yes but we are too much into technology instead of using the acoustics.
it has had a bad effect on us. Nowadays people sing with microphones instead of using their full potentials as singers.
I dislike micrphones other than for special occassions or for recording stuff.

Not giving the singer a microphone sounds like a great idea cuz I don't want to hear them anyway

In my opinion, it is certainly not ideal for singers to use microphones at Mass.

Is it easier to sing without a microphone? Why would that be?
I take singing lessons and never use a microphone at all. Are people who need a mic singers who do not have powerful voices?

As every singer in the Met Opera or Broadway show I've ever seen is Mic'd, I'd hardly say it has anything to do with the power of the voices.

In my church, it was built 1908, we used to have a shell behind the ambo to direct sound. We have a very vaulted ceiling, in the past it had hard floors, and we have a wonderful choir loft. It is a joy to stand in that loft and sing.

Now that we have carpeted floors, a PA system is required.

Have you had a public performance yet? You will likely be mic'd or the stage will be mic'd.

Are you saying the Gospel was in Latin? That's not how I remember it. In fact as a child, I used to read the gospel along with the priest and was fascinated by it.

Later on, I was an altar boy (in the early '50s) and the readings were virtually the same as they are now.

If you look at old pulpits (or at least those that have been left as originally constructed), they almost always had a sounding board, or "tester", either directly above or behind the preacher. In some churches, the pulpit would be built some distance into the congregation so that preachers could be heard more easily. I remember the old configuration of St. Paul the Apostle (the headquarters of the Paulist Fathers) in New York, before the seating was rearranged a few years back. The Paulist Fathers were renowned preachers, and would have "missions" and the like involving preaching outside of mass. The high pulpit was therefore about halfway down the nave on the right side, and all of the pews between the pulpit and the altar had hinged backs, so that they could be flipped over to allow people to sit in those pews while facing the preacher, rather than the altar.


You remember incorrectly. The epistle and gospel were both in Latin. The epistle was first read with the missal placed on the right (or liturgical "south") side of the altar, and after that the missal was carried (occasionally in procession, with lights and a thurifer) to the left, or "north" side of the altar, where the gospel would be read. After the gospel had been read in Latin from the missal while facing the altar, the priest would go to the pulpit (facing the people) for the sermon. It was a common practice for the priest first to read an English translation of the gospel from the pulpit before the sermon, but it was not required, and it technically was not an official part of the Mass.


Again your memory has let you down. The readings were different not only in their language, but also in their number and their arrangement. During the mass, there were only two readings, consisting of an Epistle and a Gospel. There was no first reading from the Old Testament, and there was no Psalm other than what was found in the Gradual for the day, if there was one. Furthermore, the missal had only a single annual cycle for readings, and as a result many readings we now hear at mass as part of the three-year cycle of the current lectionary were never used at all.

Yes, the Gospel would have been read (or sung) in Latin at the altar, but the practice in many places was to read it in the vernacular afterwards from the ambo prior to the sermon.


Very doubtful!

It is absolutely impossible that the readings could have been the same. The current 3 year lectionary cycle was not introduced until 1970. Before the Novus Ordo, there was only a one year cycle. The gospel was read in Latin at the alter by a priest with his back to the congregation and it was read at a volume that wasn't audible to the congregation. It is quite impossible that you could have been following along, unless they read the reading in English in the pulpit before the homily. I don't know how common that was, but it has never happened at any of the Latin Masses I've attended.

It really must be said that how Latin Masses are celebrated today is not necessarily how they were celebrated in the past. It's very possible that there were liturgical abuses at the parish Vern Humphrey grew up in. Still pretty unlikely that the readings were the same.

By "the same," I don't mean the same verses, I mean the same language. At Immaculate Conception in Lake Charles, LA, the readings were in English.

There are three possibilities:

Either your memory is mistaken, or there were serious liturgical abuses or you attended a parish where they read the reading a second time in English before the homily as Perginator mentioned.

Actually, I just thought of a fourth possibility, you might be thinking of the brief period between Vatican II and the publication of the Novus Ordo in 1970 when some places offered a hybrid Mass, where the TLM was offered in English.

There was a time in France during which the lessons were read out in the vernacular by a reader while the priest read them at the altar in Latin. I haven't heard of this practice being done in the United States but I guess it is barely possible.

Could be -- this was, of course a French church, albeit Arcadian.

In a sung Mass it is audible.
In a low Mass it isn't (low Mass shouldn't really exist for a congregation anyway).

When the Gospel is read at the altar the priest's back is not completely facing the people as he tries to position himself at an angle facing left -or really, facing the "right" side of the altar as the altar is supposed to represent Christ and the Gospel is read at Christ's right side. I think it's supposed to signify the Gospel message being universal as the missal is transferred from the left side (old Covenant) of the altar to the right side (new Covenant) just before reading the Gospel.

Finally, in a Solemn High Mass the priest sings the Gospel completely facing that rightward direction, so the people in a typical-traditional parish Church will see the priests left side.