www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Cantors

To be a Ruthenian cantor is to have an avocation, not a paid vocation. It seems to me that to be a cantor is to exercise a God-given talent for the sake of God's Glory, and for the benefit of the congregation. Money usually has nothing to do with it. You want to sing for money? Then go secular. The Church is for worship, and depending on what traditional church body you are in, there may or may not be funds. The current need within the Ruthenians is for cantors who love God enough that they are willing to share their talents for worship- period. Am I wrong?

Hmmm�.

I suspect that if the Oxford English Dictionary has room for Homer Simpson�s �Doh!� then there must be room for the noun �cantor� to be used as a verb.

Thank you to everyone for their kind responses. Who knows, maybe someday it would be something I would be interested in doing...

Hmmmmm and I'll admit that I'm not happy with this one - but here our unpaid Cantors cant

Ah, but here ours CAN!

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhh :p

If Jim is both willing and happy to share his musical ability with his congregation for the good of his parish church without any remuneration, he is certainly not wrong. He is generous - and generosity is to be treasured. What is wrong is demanding that other people be generous, and/or taking someone else's generosity for granted. May God bless Jim abundantly - and may God bless our parishes to realize that generosity does not come to order.
Not long ago, there was a thread on the Forum begun by a young man on the West Coast who was chanting in his parish church, at what appears to be some personal sacrifice, and who was loudly abused by a parishioner for his pains. I'm willing to wager rather more than the proverbial nickel that the young chanter was not being paid the proverbial red cent. Do we really believe that the services of a good chanter are worth nothing? Incognitus

...italics by STeve P.....

It would seem that for the last 25-30 years that would be the case. I suppose then, that we cantors (chanters), who chant without stipend, are doing the church a disservice by allowing such thinking?

The Church/Parish sees the cantor (chanter) as an avocation, a service, done out of love of liturgy without regard to their chanting ability, therefore it shouldn't be a paid postition.....

Personally, I feel that in some cases a regular stipend might help foster more involvement. It is a delicate balance though. How is pay for a cantor (chanter) determined? Who decides? Where do the funds come from? These questions are probably the prime reason so few parishes have paid cantors. The paid cantors (chanters) that I do know are gifted in voice and depth of knowledge, though not necessarily appreciated by their parish.

AS an avocation, unpaid, the duty of cantor (chanter) becomes more of an issue of who has the fortitude to weather such diatribes of malcontent parishioners and soldier on, week after week.

Those who stick to it whether paid or unpaid have a great responsibility in maintaining the integrity of the liturgical chants.

Just my couple 'o cents,

Steve

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

The ministry of Cantor (which, by the way, is the word as it was used in the old country)was most certainly a position which was recompensed. It would not be quite accurate to call it 'salaried' because it was not uncommon for both priest and cantor to receive "in kind" payment, along with a house and firewood, for their ministerial services.

Many of the first parishes organized in this country had stipended cantors, when they could get them; this assumed, of course, that those men were diploma-ed from the Cantor Institute conducted at the Seminary.

However, that custom (in general)died a very quick death in the U.S.A. Having said that, it is my belief (which is easily substantiated by some research) that it has never totally died out here. But I am referring to "stipends," not to "salaries."

Should it happen? It would be most adventageous to the whole Church. Will it happen? I don't foresee it at any time in the near future.

(Prof.) J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

What were the duties of the Cantor in the old country? As one the probably few people in the village who was literate (adult literacy in Sub-Carpathia broke the 50% mark only in the Communist era) thay probably had substantial teaching duties in addition to chanting. A lot of things are different here.

It may or may not already be the practice, but ISTM that a parish should certainly undertake to subsidize costs of training and regular trips to Cantor institutes/workshops at regionaa and national levels. This woudl be good for the quality of chanting, probably a lot of fun, and a nice perk of the job. I would guess that targeted fund-raising for this purpose would enjoy great success. I'll certainly ante up.

Beyond this, it's not clear what kind of compensation monetary would be appropriate. Anyone want to suggest a figure?

Yes, the cantor in the villages was a person of special importance, and as a literate person he often was also engaged in a teaching role.

He was nearly always with the priest, whether it be sick calls, house blessings, etc. I was looking at some old parish photos at the Eparchial museum in Stamford and saw pictures of diaki teaching children catechism amongst other things.

Bl. Volodymyr Pryjma, one of the new Martyrs beatified by the Pope during his recent trip to Ukraine, was the village cantor of Stradch accompanying Fr. Mykola Konrad to another village to assist him with Divine Liturgy, sick calls, etc. They were both killed together in 1941 by the NKVD. That's what cantors "do".

Critics:

Incognitus recalled the thread about the cantor who experienced some form of criticism or rejection by a member of the congregation. The elder cantor I have worked with provides a practical solution: invite the critic to join the cantors, so that he/she can help improve things. His experience has been that the criticism usually stops at that point.

Reimbursement:

I can be reimbursed for some out of pocket expenses (stipends as Prof. Thompson might say) that help me do a better job as cantor. I suspect that is true in many more parishes currently than has been stated so far. Some such expenses probably include music software, printing costs, and cost of service materials.

Small t traditions in cantoring:

My understanding of cantoring in the old country is that styles, sources, etc. varied from parish to parish. One common standard for all would not appear to be in keeping with that. When trying to find the most authentic approach, how does this factor in, assuming it is correct?

There is another dilemma: getting congregations to embrace liturgical changes. Some parishes just don't follow in the wake of the changes. There is a need for practical resources that are relatively easy to use without sacrificing content to the "dumbing down" approach, sources that take into account the people in the pews (I know I'm being a champion of the obvious, I suppose.) .

Just my thoughts.

Hmmm.

I've said it before - in the US at least, cantors are the most important liturgical afterthought in the church.

Priests are important - we had seminaries in the Old Country - we have seminaries in the new.

Cantors? Well, we had professional level cantor colleges in the old country - we have only begun to train cantors at the eparchial/metropolitan level here, and the quality of the programs vary.

With respect to our venerable tradition of liturgy in the vernacular, for years music was considered of secondary importance. We have had books with stripped-down music, where there was any music at all, and it was customary for many priests to complain about the singing at their parish - as if people without resources could magically change things while the Eparchy continued to emit new books without notation - that didn't necessarily fit the "old" music. Sink or swim. We have only recently begun to have authoritative music with English translations. (I don't buy the idea that any cantor worth their salt must also be able to fluently read Slavonic in Cyrillic.)

Up until very recently, we as Church have not put a lot of effort into assuring there was a useful, affordable musical toolset available at the parish level. Cantors have also been on ther own in seeking vocal training (which is NOT cheap) - at least those who understood the need for it.

I submit that while the cantor is awfully important in the liturgical life of the church, there's been a tremendous disconnect in this country, and it's not just at the parish level.

Things are changing, but it's a slow process. God bless the folks working hardest to change it.

No, most of us don't get "paid." There's usually something at Christmas, and folks who can afford a nice wedding and/or baptism also usually remember the folks who sing it - but I will also readily take half a day off work to bury someone - no matter what - because that's one of the works of mercy we do as Church.

For me, being a cantor is something I do because I can, and because I think I've been called to do it. St. Paul spoke of the different gifts people are given for the upbuilding of the church. Some folks teach, some folks preach, some folks give generously. Me, I sing (and cashier Bingo, and work assiduously at making strangers feel welcome).

Slightly scattered-ly yours,

Sharon

In the old country, where the people don't have a lot of money, but somehow the Churches are filled with gold-plated testaments to their love of God, the Cantor/Psalti is quite well-established as an honorable and much-needed vocation.

The Orthodox Church of Albania even has a "cantor" or "psalti" track at their seminary.

Each priest has an assigned psalti, although depending upon availability, the priest may conduct services, visits, etc. with another psalti from the diocesan "pool."

The psalti is usually paid a percentage of the receipts. What that percentage is exactly, I don't know. Perhaps this percentage is paid only up to a certain absolute monetary limit, lest the Cathedral's psalt make $50,000 per year. Needless to say, the grieving, the marrying, the baptizing are surrounded by at least one priest and a minor clergyman (the cantor).

Having a priest & cantor duo also allows the priest to make home visits without people "inventing" scandals regarding "what he was doing in there at the young widow's home."

My own experience as a tonsured Reader (cantor/psalti) since 1997 reflects much of what others have posted above. As a result of receiving no stipend and often no renumeration even for "personal services" such as baptisms and funerals, I find it very easy to remain at my regular job (where they actually pay me), take side work as an interpreter (which also pays well), or remain at home (where my seven month old rewards me for my loyalty to the family with sloppy wet kisses on my nose).

I'm also not optimistic about the future of the cantor/psalti in North America.

With love in Christ born and glorified,
Reader Andrew

Andrew, that is a very good point. A Psaltist/diak/cantor track should be made available not only at the seminary level but also through perhaps more regional workshops, etc. so the parishes can have easier access. But again, that takes time to plan and execute and given the size of our country also necesssitates travel costs. But certainly worth looking into.