A reader writes:
I’m in a kind of liturgical bind right now. My parish wants to do a ‘Gospel skit’ for the Scrutiny Gospel. I am opposed to this, but everyone else seems to think it okay (including my pastor).
The text of the Gospel will not be read at all. There will be a paraphrased narration read by a non-ordained lector (they wanted me to be one of the narrators–I declined). Actors will be playing the different characters in the Gospel silently while the narration occurs. They will not be reading any parts of the Gospel.
How should I respond to this?
First, here’s what canon law says about the observance of the Church’s liturgical books:
Canon 846 §1
The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore, no one on personal authority may add, remove, or change anything in them.
One of the Church’s liturgical book (in fact, it’s main liturgical book) is the Roman Missal. The Roman Missal comprises the Sacramentary, the Lectionary, and the Book of the Gospels. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) contains the core instructions for celebrating Mass. The GIRM that is currently in force states:
57. In the readings, the table of God’s word is prepared for the faithful, and the riches of the Bible are opened to them. Hence, it is preferable to maintain the arrangement of the biblical readings, by which light is shed on the unity of both Testaments and of salvation history. Moreover, it is unlawful to substitute other, non-biblical texts for the readings and responsorial Psalm, which contain the word of God.
59. By tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential. The readings, therefore, should be proclaimed by a lector, and the Gospel by a deacon or, in his absence, a priest other than the celebrant. If, however, a deacon or another priest is not present, the priest celebrant himself should read the Gospel. Further, if another suitable lector is also not present, then the priest celebrant should also proclaim the other readings.
60. The reading of the Gospel is the high point of the Liturgy of the Word. The Liturgy itself teaches that great reverence is to be shown to it by setting it off from the other readings with special marks of honor: whether the minister appointed to proclaim it prepares himself by a blessing or prayer; or the faithful, standing as they listen to it being read, through their acclamations acknowledge and confess Christ present and speaking to them; or the very marks of reverence are given to the Book of the Gospels.
In view of this, the proposed skit in your parish is prohibited on several counts:
-
The text of the Gospel cannot be paraphrased. The Lectionary and Book of the Gospels are liturgical books and therefore must be observed strictly, with no additions, deletions, or substitutions. Thus, no paraphrasing. To construct a paraphrase of the Gospel amounts to the creation of a non-biblical text that also falls afoul of the GIRM.
-
The pantomiming of the Gospel also represents an addition to what is called for in the liturgical books and is therefore disallowed. Further, it detracts from the reverence due to the Gospel, which is stressed in the GIRM.
Would it be appropriate to walk out in protest and thus miss Mass that day if they do that? My parish has nasty habit of doing that during Lent.
Hey, I was wondering if this would be allowed: At my high school’s Kairos Retreats (and probably at other school’s Kairos Retreats) we have a Mass on the last night using the story of the Prodigal Son for the Gospel, but a group of the students act it out. The entire, unparaphrased Gospel is read by a “narrator,” and it is also acted out by a few people in the background. There’s an attempt to be reverent and not do anything silly although things may seem amusing when you see one of your peers pretending to try to get at what the swine are eating, but it’s definitely unintentional. The homily is said by the priest, then another group comes up with the petitions and another offers up prayers of thanksgiving, so the whole point is to make this a really engaging Mass. It’s followed by a penance service, individual Confession, and another activity, all of which turns out great and truly changes lives. I don’t think what is done violates any of the regulations you cited, at least not under the grounds under which you said the other incident would be wrong. Any problem?
-Matt
Paul: I would not consider an abuse of this nature sufficient cause to miss Mass. You could, however, leave and attend a different Mass.
Matt: The pantomiming of the Gospel still constitutes an addition to what is prescribed in the Church’s liturgical books and therefore can’t be done under Canon 864 (above).
59. By tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential. The readings, therefore, should be proclaimed by a lector, and the Gospel by a deacon or, in his absence, a priest other than the celebrant. If, however, a deacon or another priest is not present, the priest celebrant himself should read the Gospel. Further, if another suitable lector is also not present, then the priest celebrant should also proclaim the other readings.
I’m a little confused by this. I’m guessing they mean this with regard to the particular role of the priest in this function.
I mean, wasn’t it the case that the priest generally read the Epistle prior to the 1970 Missal?
The entire, unparaphrased Gospel is read by a “narrator,” and it is also acted out by a few people in the background.
Isn’t the Gospel supposed to be read by the priest or the deacon? I know there are some exceptions, like when the Passion narrative is read, but in such cases the actual words of Our Lord, as well as the main substance of the lesson, are always read by the priest or deacon.
I mean, wasn’t it the case that the priest generally read the Epistle prior to the 1970 Missal?
It depends. If a deacon were present, he might have read the Epistle; and if it was a Solemn Mass (priest, deacon, subdeacon), the subdeacon would chant the Epistle and the deacon the Gospel. Then the lessons would be repeated in English from the pulpit before the sermon.
I certainly wouldn’t stay in church for a “Gospel skit” or any other obvious abuse (showing movies or slides, liturgical dancing, etc.). But unless it was gravely inconvenient to assist at another Mass I think I would still be bound by the Mass obligation.
Last year when the Passion was read during Holy Week, at the Good Friday service I attended, the priest had the congregation read Christ’s part & the rest was done by a lector, a deacon, & the priest. I very much enjoy attendig Mass during Holy Week but this made me a bit uncomfortable. Apparently, the same had been done on Palm Sunday just a few days before. In light of what you post, would this be considered a change similar to the one the reader asked you about that GIRM article 57 speaks against? Should only a priest or deacon read Christ’s part in these Gospel readings? The articles from the GIRM you quote don’t seem to leave room for an exception such as the reading of the Passion on Palm Sunday & Good Friday.
Echoing Gene’s post, at my parish on Passion Sunday and on Good Friday, the Passion of Our Lord is read in parts. The lectors read the first and second reading. Then for the Gospel, the priest reads the part of Jesus and the lectors read the parts of the narrator and of the crowd.
In light of what has been said about who proclaims the Gsopel, how does this fit?
I think what you have described is kosher. At the very least it is a common practice. I’ll defer to others more knowledgeable on whether it is more than tacitly permitted.
To raise another possibility …
Any chance this is a paraliturgy rather than the reading of the Gospel during Mass? The reader does not mention Mass and says “everyone else seems to think it okay (including my pastor)”.
It is not a paraliturgy. It was planned to be done for Mass during the Scrutinies.
I have received an update on the situation. There will be no paraphrasing of the Gospels. It will be read by the priest, but by lectors as well (which makes it illicit on this particular Sunday). There will still be a skit acting out the passages of the Gospels (still illicit because it is inappropriate).
I agree that the priest and lectors should not be reading this Gospel. But the Directory for Masses with Children may be the basis for the confusion. It was approved on 22 October 1973 by Pope Paul VI and includes in n. 47: “When the text of the reading lends itself to this, it may be helpful to have the children read it with parts distributed among them, as provided for the reading of the Lord’s Passion during Holy Week.”
I believe this permission is removed by the 2002 General Instruction to the Roman Missal, n. 109: “But it is not at all appropriate that several persons divide a single element of the celebration among themselves, e.g., that the same reading be proclaimed by two lectors, one after the other, except as far as the Passion of the Lord is concerned.”
But it could be argued that even though the 2002 document is more recent it deos not specifically address the situation of children at Mass. Whether the lectors were children would then be relevant. So would the bishop’s approval in terms of Directory for Masses with Children, n. 19 “Wherever the bishop permits, in addition to the adaptations already provided in the Order of Mass, one or other of the particular adaptions described later in the Directory may be employed in a Mass celebrated with adults in which children also participate.”
“the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential”
Apparently, in the parish in question, they just misread “ministerial” and thought it was “minstral!”
At my parish, the Passion was read by 3 different lectors. The priest read “please kneel” when Christ gave up his spirit. That was it. I felt most uncomfortable being one of the lectors. I was unaware that this was going to happen. Is this correct?
I was under the impression that the priest was still supposed to read the words of Jesus in the Passion Gospel. Our pastor did.
I thought only the priest could/should read the Gospel. I do not like children giving out communion nor reading any of the readings. I do not like the Deacon reading the Gospel…And, there are way too many people giving out communion. This is terrible in my eyes…JoAnne
Jimmy,
You are perfectly justified and in the right to be upset. Archbishop Rajeef (correct spelling?) in Rome has written about abuses that have become regular and almost the norm. I would write to your bishop and if you receive no satisfaction refer the letter and reply from your bishop to the Congregation for Sacraments in Rome.
I just attended a Good Friday Adoration of the Cross ceremony and all the Good Friday Prayers were rewritten. They read luck fluffy verses from a 1970’s love song. “Lets pray the world is full of love so that we may all love each other in love and have a love in with loving love etc”.
Don’t give into despair or be tempted to give up! Its a good sign that you pick up these abuses. A man of principle fights against such things regardless the cost>…look at Our Lord!
Jimmy,
You are perfectly justified and in the right to be upset. Archbishop Rajeef (correct spelling?) in Rome has written about abuses that have become regular and almost the norm. I would write to your bishop and if you receive no satisfaction refer the letter and reply from your bishop to the Congregation for Sacraments in Rome.
I just attended a Good Friday Adoration of the Cross ceremony and all the Good Friday Prayers were rewritten. They read luck fluffy verses from a 1970’s love song. “Lets pray the world is full of love so that we may all love each other in love and have a love in with loving love etc”.
Don’t give into despair or be tempted to give up! Its a good sign that you pick up these abuses. A man of principle fights against such things regardless the cost>…look at Our Lord!