And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet.
*Yeah, I know I'm going out on a limb but I going to "assume" he sang...
....., and also assuming that he sang 12th Century plain chant
*No. I am asseting He sang in a manner you might recognise as plain chant. Of course it was a Christian organic development risen out of the chanting down in the Synagogue.
THe Catholic Mass is straight from the Bibe and many of our acts of Worship are echoes of Synagogal worship
This has all been an interesting discussion, but what I object to are those who have preferences that they try to impose on others as "holy" or God-given or the "right way" to do it.
Fact is, Jesus worshipped in the manner of the time. In other words, He was being contemporary. Say what you will about worship in the synagog at the time of Christ, it was obviously not the way King Saul, and King David after him, worshipped (they way they worshipped, or praised Jehovah, was almost pentacostal).
And that's my point...there is absolutely nothing wrong with contemporary worship and praise, and nothing inherently right with medieval, or even later classical, music, chanting, singing, toning or whatever.
I'm not a big classical buff, and while I enjoy it at times, I have never utilized it in either my devotional time, worship or praise time.
I doubt that in Heaven we will be praising God in the stolid, stiff, unenthusiastic manner that worship services are carried on in church today. If so, I would expect God to be a little more than put off. He just might say, forget it.