Category: Liturgy

Y’know how people in many parishes can’t seem to keep their hands to themselves during the Our Father?

In many parishes they get grabby and, though in American culture holding hands with another person is a gesture of intimacy (sweethearts do it, spouses do it, parents and children do it, complete strangers do not do it), suddenly the person next to you wants to engage in the gesture with you, a complete stranger.

In my own case, I solve this problem by clasping my hands in front of me and closing my eyes. 99.99% of the time that takes care of the issue, though I did once experience an elderly woman using her fingers to pluck at my elbow in an attempt to pierce through my obviously meditative attitude and get me to Conform to the handholding she wanted to inflict on me.

Needless to say, a lot of folks find this (unauthorized) grabbiness disturbing, and there has been perplexity at the episcopal level concerning what to do about it.

In come some helpful liturgists, who have suggested that instead of holding hands, people imitate the priest, who happens to be in the orans position at this moment, with his hands outstretched in prayer.

This has the advantage of not automatically inflicting hand-to-hand contact on the people next to one in the pew, though in an especially crowded pew it is not a sure recipe for avoiding all bodily contact. (One may experience a whack to the face, or at least the uncomfortable experience of becoming visually acquainted with the back of a stranger’s hand better than you know your own.)

One detects in the liturgists’ suggestion a further motive besides avoiding excessive touchy-feeliness (particularly since liturgists have themselves been excessively touchy-feely in recent years). Could it be . . . a desire to get the laity to imitate the priest and thus further blur the lines between the two?

"Oh, surely not!" you’re saying. "Liturgical planners have been scrupulous since the reform of the liturgy about making sure the roles of priest and laity are at all times clearly distinguished. Just ask them! They’ll tell you!"

However that may be, the Holy See has been concerned about the laity unduly aping the priest at Mass, and in the 1997 Instruction on Collaboration, an unprecedented conjunction of Vatican dicasteries wrote:

6 § 2. To promote the proper identity (of various roles) in this area, those abuses which are contrary to the provisions of canon 907 [i.e., "In the celebration of the Eucharist, deacons and lay persons are not permitted to say the prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, nor to perform the actions which are proper to the celebrating priest."] are to be eradicated. In eucharistic celebrations deacons and non-ordained members of the faithful may not pronounce prayers — e.g. especially the eucharistic prayer, with its concluding doxology — or any other parts of the liturgy reserved to the celebrant priest. Neither may deacons or non-ordained members of the faithful use gestures or actions which are proper to the same priest celebrant. It is a grave abuse for any member of the non-ordained faithful to "quasi preside" at the Mass while leaving only that minimal participation to the priest which is necessary to secure validity.

This instruction, incidentally, was approved by John Paul II in forma specifica, meaning that the pope invested it with his own authority and is binding on us with the pope’s authority and not merely the authority of the authoring congregations.

Now, what gestures are proper to the priest celebrant? The orans gesture when praying on behalf of the people is certainly one of them. The priest celebrant and no others (not even concelebrating priests) are directed to make this gesture in the rubrics.

In some places, some laity may spread their arms whenever the priest spreads his in a kind of "Back atcha!" motion. I’ve even seen some do a phenomenal pantomime of tossing an invisible ball to the priest by swooping their palms close together and then spreading them apart as they assume the orans posture. But this is clearly apart from the rubrics.

If the orans posture is one proper to the priest celebrant in the liturgy then the laity should not be imitating it.

But Ed Peters raises an interesting question:

SHOULD EVEN THE PRIEST CELEBRANT HIMSELF BE MAKING THIS GESTURE DURING THE OUR FATHER?

The rubrics at present call for him to do so, so he should do so until the rubrics are changed, but given the underlying logic of the rubrics and the way the saying of the Our Father has developed in Mass, Ed raises an interesting question as to whether the rubrics might oughta be changed.

A reader writes:

Is it licit to use the pre-vatican ii divine office? I cannot see why the use of the old divine office as a private devotion would be contrary to church, though I am sure that it would not count as the official prayer of the church.

My preference would be to use the new Liturgia Horarum issued by the Vatican, but the cost is prohibitive–each of the 4 volumes is 85 dollars!–and it does not have an English translation. The English Liturgy of the Hours is quite expensive too but the principal reason I’d prefer to use the angelus press edition is that I’d like to pray the hours in Latin.

To sum up, my question is: Is it licit to use the angelus press officium divinum as a private devotion?

I am unaware of any law that would prohibit the saying of the old form of the divine office as a personal form of devotion. The content of the older form of the office was certainly in conformity with the Catholic faith, and the Church permits personal forms of devotion that are in conformity with the Catholic faith as long as they have not been specifically reprobated. I am unaware of anything that would reprobate this as a personal devotion, and so I see no reason why you cannot do so.

That being said, the older form of the divine office is not the same as the current form and, as a result–unless there is a provision out there allowing this–my understanding is that saying it according to the old form would not count as a participation in the Church’s liturgical prayer. If you want to do that, you need to say the prayer in the form that the Church presently prays.

When most folks think about liturgy, they think about the Eucharist, but the Eucharistic liturgy is only one of several in the Church. Each of the other sacraments is performed in the context of a liturgy. But there is an additional liturgy that the Church celebrates: the liturgy of the hours.

Recently I received some questions about the liturgy of the hours and asked <Rule 15b>Fr. Stephanos of the Order of St. Benedict</Rule15b> if he would be so kind as to answer them for the folks on the blog. I figured it could be a real service for the reader since so few of us layfolks know much about the liturgy of the hours.

I hope y’all will join me in thanking Fr. Stephanos for taking the time to help us to better understand this liturgy of the Church.

Here goes!

===========================

SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE CANONICAL HOURS OF THE LITURGY

 

++++

 

First of all, a striking affirmation!

 

The “canonical hours of the liturgy” make up a  “prayer/worship system” that, beyond the Mass, constitutes the Church’s OFFICIAL AND PUBLIC prayer life.  In fact, the Church regards the “hours” as an extension of the “Liturgy of the Word” that makes up the first “half” of the Mass.  Because of this the Church obligates priests and members of religious orders to offer up daily the canonical hours.

 

So, in union with the Pope, the Bishops and the priests, the order of obligation and devotion is:  (1) the Mass, (2) the Liturgy of the Hours, (3) all other forms of personal, private devotions, prayers, reading, etc.

 

Many laypersons take up the canonical hours privately.  It unites them to the Church’s formal, public mission of both worship offered to God and intercession offered for the world.

 

++++

 

THE QUESTIONS

 

How closely do modern-day monasteries follow the classical forms of worship based on the canonical hours (Matins, Lauds, Prime, Compline, Vespers, etc.)?

 

And more specifically — it’s been my impression (as a layperson whose knowledge of this material has been gained largely from reading fiction set in medieval times) that the services of the canonical hours are primarily prayer services with closely prescribed orders of worship, such that most of what happens is scripted reading/response.

 

Therefore, two questions: in general, how much discretion would a monastery’s religious leader have over the Scripture readings used in a given service (i.e. do monasteries typically adhere to liturgical calendars prescribed by central authority)? And in which of the daily services – if any — would the presiding priest typically give an original or personally drafted homily or sermon?"

 

++++

 

Now, some answers follow.

 

++++

 

First of all, a little explanation of the “hours.”

 

Although the history of the liturgical hours of worship is older than St. Benedict of Nursia (who died in A.D. 547), most of that history since he died has been dominated or at least influenced by his arrangements for monks.

 

St. Benedict arranged to have his monks gather in church to pray (by singing or reciting) certain Psalms at certain hours of the day.  His arrangement provided for all 150 Psalms to be recited within the course of one week.  Together with the Psalms, he provided for other “song-type” passages of Scripture to also be prayed.  Sections of the singing or recitation would be interrupted by shorter or longer readings by a lector.  There would also be responsories, hymns, intercessions.

 

Certain Psalms, because of what they say, fit certain times of day better than others, so they are deliberately scheduled for those times of day.  Other Psalms are just distributed for the sake of distribution.

 

++++

 

Here is the schedule of the classical hours together with some of the various names for them throughout history).

 

2 or 3 A.M., MATINS (also called Vigils or Office of Readings).  This is the longest liturgical “hour” of the day.

 

A shorter or longer break.

 

Around sunrise, LAUDS (Morning Prayer).  Psalms 148, 149 and 150 all begin in Latin with “Lauda” (Praise!).  These three psalms always concluded the Psalm section of this hour and are the source of the name “Lauds.”

 

Shortly after Lauds:  PRIME (first hour after sunrise).

 

Midmorning:  TERCE (from the Latin for “third”, since it is roughly three hours after sunrise).

 

Midday:  SEXT (six hours after sunrise; the Latin for “sixth hour” is “hora sexta”).  This is followed by a scheduled rest or nap.  You would do the same if you had arisen at 2 or 3 A.M.  The Spanish word “siesta” comes from the Latin “sexta.”

 

Midafternoon:  NONE–rhymes with “bone”.  Comes from “hora nona”—“ninth hour” in Latin.  The Latins reckoned the day in rough three-hour shifts; they called the period from midday to midafternoon “nona”—from which English gets “noon.”

 

Sundown:  VESPERS (Evening Prayer).  “Vespers” is from the Latin for “evening.”

 

Bedtime prayers:  COMPLINE (Night Prayer).  The Latin is “completorium” for this service that completes the hours.

 

++++

 

The longest service among those hours is Matins (Vigils or Office of Readings).  In St. Benedict’s arrangement it is basically:  six Psalms, a long reading from Scripture, a responsory, six more Psalms, another long reading from Scripture, a responsory, a few Scriptural canticles, a reading from the Fathers of the Church, a responsory, a reading of the Gospel, two hymns.

 

Lauds (Morning Prayer):  Several Psalms and canticles, a short reading from Scripture, a responsory, a hymn, the Benedictus canticle, intercessions, Our Father.

 

Vespers (Evening Prayer) has the same structure as Lauds, except it has the Magnificat instead of the Benedictus.

 

The other hours (prime, terce, sext, none, compline) are all basically three psalms each, with a few other elements.  These hours are usually called “The Little Hours.”

 

++++

 

The monastery’s work periods, the meals, the times for solitary prayer and reading are woven in and out of the basic framework of the liturgical hours.

 

++++

 

There are not enough Psalms to fill out the one-week structure that St. Benedict arranged.  So, he provided that for Wednesday through Saturday, at the hours of prime, terce, sext and none, the monks would repeat at those hours the same Psalms they had used at those hours on Tuesday.

 

Since the hour of prime really just sort of got tacked on at the end of Lauds, the Vatican (after Vatican II) directed the entire Church to set aside the obligation to pray prime.

 

Monasteries are free to still arrange to pray all 150 Psalms over the course of one week.

 

The Vatican’s official publication of the “Liturgy of the Hours” is a four-volume set with the Psalms basically spread out over the course of four weeks.  Since it is spread out over four weeks instead of one, the individual hours (particularly Matins and Lauds) are not as long as St. Benedict had them.  Diocesan priests, members of religious orders, all monasteries, deacons, etc. may all legitimately make use of this publication.  Religious orders, including those that usually live in monasteries, have some legitimate permission to restructure somewhat their own procedures of the Liturgy of the Hours.

 

++++

 

Monasteries adapt  the universal liturgical calendar to legitimately approved usages proper to the monastery.  For instance, the universal calendar has July 11 as the memorial of St. Benedict.  However, Benedictine monks also observe March 21 (as a feast or even a solemnity that supercedes Sunday), since it is the day St. Benedict died.

 

Monasteries may use the readings the Vatican published for the calendar of the hours, or they may select other Scripture readings.  Some religious orders, with legitimate permission, have assembled their own selection of readings into an outright Lectionary.

 

As for homilies preached during the canonical hours … this may be done … but it practically never is.

 

The correct places for a homily:  after the Gospel during Matins (Vigils); after the short reading at Lauds or Vespers.

 

++++

 

It is legitimate to incorporate the hours into the Mass.  This is regularly done in many monasteries and even at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

 

For instance, say a monastery is going to incorporate Lauds into the morning Mass.  The priest vests as for Mass.  The entrance song is sung.  Lauds begins—but just the psalms.  Then, the priest offers the Opening Prayer of the Mass, and then the Mass proceeds as normal from there.  At communion, instead of the communion song, the Benedictus for Lauds is sung.  (The same structure for Vespers with evening Mass, with the Magnificat for Vespers sung at communion.)

 

One occasion when Vespers is always incorporated into the Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome:  the annual Papal Mass for the Opening of the Academic Year.

 

++++

 

Final comments about the personal advantage of using the “Liturgy of the Hours.”

 

It unites you to the official, round-the-world prayer and worship of the pope, all bishops, priests, deacons and religious orders.

 

The themes expressed in the Psalms and throughout the Liturgy of the Hours don’t necessarily line up with your own concerns and moods and moments.  So, if you let it do so, the Liturgy constantly calls you to a bigger picture than your lonely only.  It is to be offered up as a sacrifice of praise and a sacrifice of intercession.

 

It can ground you in the two major movements of EVERYTHING:  (1) the worship of God, (2) the world’s salvation (in all matters big and small).  You end up praying God’s Word about himself, and praying God’s Word for the world and yourself.

 

“GLORY TO GOD in the highest … and on earth PEACE TO MEN on whom his goodwill rests!”  (That does cover EVERYTHING, folks.)

 

++++

 

Father Stephanos of the Order of Saint Benedict

A reader writes:

Hello again Jimmy,

What do you do, or rather, what is the appropriate response and/or teaching about the following situation:

I have been at Mass several times where the priest changes the words of consecration.   For the words of consecration for the bread, he says "Take this, all of you, and eat it.  This is My Body, which will be given up for all of you."   For the consecration of the wine he says, "Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.   It will be shed for you and for everyone
so that sins may be forgiven.  And as often as you do this, you do it in memory of me."

Are these extra words and the changing a big deal? 

Yep. The words of consecration are the most important words in the whole Mass, and it is objectively gravely sinful to knowingly and deliberately tamper with them in any way, even a way that does not invalidate the consecration.

So far, whenever it has happened (and it happens at other places too, not just with this priest, but I am specifically asking about this priest because I’ll be at an event this week where he will celebrate the Mass), I pray for him,

Good reaction.

for the Church,

Also good.

for an increase in love for the Blessed Sacrament,

Very good.

and I refrain from communing because I’ve never been sure if this is a valid consecration or not.

Not good.

If the changes are of the nature you say then the consecration is going to be valid. As long as he conveys the ideas "This is my Body" and "This is . . . my blood" then the consecration will take place because the words he uses signify the reality of transubstantiation.

Is it a valid consecration? 

Yes, as indicated.

If it is not, am I doing right to stay in the pew? 

If it were not valid then you should, of course, refrain from receiving, but since the consecration is valid the Church would encourage you to receive as long as you are otherwise qualified and properly disposed (e.g., you’ve fasted for an hour before Communion, you aren’t in a state of mortal sin, etc.).

When I am at the Mass with him it is usually a small group and all the rest of the group is Catholic and in the past, everyone else has gone for communion except me. 

God is pleased by your willingness to honor him by allowing yourself to be left out in this manner, even though it has not been objectively necessary.

A couple of times Father has actually motioned to me or asked if I would like to come to communion, too. 

Father is behaving irresponsibly. (But then you already knew that.) Neither priests nor anybody else should ever put pressure on individuals to receive Communion. They particularly should not do so publicly. This is unconsionable. They may preach about the good of frequent, properly disposed Communion (as long as they are not giving the impression of targeting any particular person or group of persons with this preaching), but if someone is refraining from coming then it is an abuse of the rights of the faithful to pressure them into coming. Church law and teaching is clear that nobody is to be forced to the sacraments, and that includes putting public pressure on them to receive the sacraments.

Is there a way to approach Father and ask him about this or have an apologetic moment?  I’m not 100% sure that I am going to teach him anything new that he didn’t learn in seminary.

It sound as if there is a good deal he didn’t learn in seminary that you could teach him. That being said, you know the saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink." It is a judgment call whether you think that he’s teachable and what the benefits and costs would be of trying to educate him on the matter.

One thing, if you conclude that the thing to do is to talk to him about it, that can maximize your chances is quoting official Church documents. He’s not likely to care about what I’ve said on a blog. Arguing on that basis will distract and bog down the discussion. But if you show him official Church documents, you have a better chance of helping him to see the difficulty with what he is doing.

To that end, I suggest that you look up

CANON 846 §1 OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW.

Since this canon says that in celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books are to be faithfully observed, with no one adding, deleting, or changing anything in them, and since the words of consecration are printed in the liturgical books (specifically, the Sacramentary) it is impermissible to tamper with the words of consecration.

20

A reader writes:

In the parish I go to, I have discovered, many months ago, that the priest’s homily is always downloaded from the internet. It has gotten so that each Sunday, I would pick up a couple of key words said during the homily and then google those when I get home.  Invariably, I would find the homily that he had delivered to our parish.

It is disappointing to me, because now I do not feel that the priest is actually devliering a ‘personal’ homily (whatever that means). Is it alright for a priest to be doing this?  I was wondering if there was any Church law on homilies that touch on this matter.

I know that it’s diappointing when one realizes that a priest is not writing his own homilies, but there is no law against it.

THUS HOMILY SERVICES ABOUND ON THE INTERNET (AND IN PRINT).

Priests may offer different reasons for why they use such services. Some, for example, might appeal to how busy they are and argue that with the shrinking number of priests they are ever busier and thus more unable to find time to write a weekly homily.

If that is genuinely the case for a particular priest, then using a homily service is perfectly legitimate and praiseworthy as a way of obtaining (what one hopes is) quality material to present to one’s flock.

Too often, though, many might have trouble giving credence to this argument. To many laity, a large number of priests today give the appearance of being lazy lumps who do not have any idea how easy they’ve got it compared to people with jobs and families and who have an appalling bad "customer service" attitude that would make it difficult for them to hold down a job in the secular world if it involved working with the public.

The contrast with other priests who have a real work ethic, who do things expeditiously, and who make themselves available to people (without giving the appearance of being put-upon) is dramatic.

But then it’s probably always been that way. Chaucer would have had very little trouble getting Fr. Modern Put-Upon into the Canterbury Tales.

It also doesn’t seem that it should take that long to come up with a homily. As a public speaker who speaks on biblical subjects on a regular basis, I think that for a professional who preaches every week it should take no more than thirty minutes max (and that’s being generous) to come up with a good, basic five or ten minute homily explaining what the readings mean and what we can learn from them.

In fact, I think that (if I were a priest who reads the Bible and who’s been speaking for more than a handful of years), I’d be able to read the readings, think about them for five minutes, and then be able to get up and speak informatively about them for five or ten minutes in an extemporaneous fashion. (I say that because I’ve gotten to the point in my own speechifying that I normally know my subject well enough that I can talk extemporaneously based on a little prior reflection to think through the points I want to make.)

The trouble is that most priests don’t want to give good, basic homilies. They seem to think that they’ve got to be Deep and Inspiring and as a result they clutter up their homilies with all kinds of extraneous elements designed to make them seem Deep and Inspiring and that actually distract from telling us what the readings are about.

For example, how often do you have a priest start a homily with one of those patented Anecdotes Of Dubious Historicity That Are Only Connected To The Readings In The Most Tenuous Manner Imaginable? (Or the even worse Joke Of Dubious Humor Value That Everyone Feels Obliged To Chuckle At So As Not To Be Rude.)

It’s like they teach ’em in seminary that it’s not okay to approach the readings directly, that they must only be approached obliquely.

A number of years ago, someone caught me overusing anecdotes and pointed out that what I said would be a lot more powerful if I said what I wanted to say straight out instead of trying to cloak it in a disguise that might be emotionally meaningful for me but likely would only confuse or bore others. I didn’t like it when he told me that, but he was right, and I wish more priests learned the same lesson.

The problem is that you can’t be Profound every week, and if you
try, you’ll fail. The solution is not to try to be Profound every week
and only go for profundity when you yourself are feeling particularly
inspired.

But rather than do this, many priests use artsy tricks to try to create the appearance of profundity.

Some priests even seem to have definite literary forms worked out for their homilies. One priest who I see preach regularly (and who I suspect is using a homily service) always, always starts his homily with an Anecdote of Dubious Historicity and then languidly gets around to maybe, kinda discussing the readings and then summing up by formulating things into a kind of "Do I want to be this kind of person or that kind of person?" question, at which point he says "You decide!" and walks back to the chair.

Same thing each time I see him preach. Every. Single. Time.

How much more refreshing it would be if he cut the "artsy" stuff and simply began by saying, "In today’s Gospel, Jesus tell us that . . . " or "In the second reading, St. Paul says that . . . "

What a breath of fresh air that would be! Straight into the subject without having to sit through an iffy anecdote or joke!

The poor state of contemporary homiletics is really criminal, because with the Church in the condition it is at present, the faithful desperately need to be instructed in their faith. The homily is the one time that the priest can really reach his core audience with instruction in the faith, and wasting the opportunity on a bunch of fluffle is simply unsupportable in the present environment (or, for that matter, in any environment).

What counts is getting people instructed in their faith and how the readings relate to that.

Which brings up a point.

I can think of one really good, iron-clad reason for using a homily service: If a priest has found a particular service that consistently delivers quality homilies that are better than the ones he could write himself then it is not only legitimate but also praiseworthy for him to use it. He is doing something that genuinely will better serve the people to whom he ministers.

More power to him!

In fact, in olden days it was common for great preachers (e.g., Cardinal Newman)–and great non-Catholic preachers (e.g., John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon)–to publish books of their homilies and sermons for the edification of other priests and ministers and even the faithful.

I don’t see a problem with that.

Given the technology of the time, these homilies were distributed by book or booklet rather than being downloadable from the Internet, but they still provided the function of helping priests (and, in the Protestant community, ministers) of delivering higher quality material than they otherwise would have.

I thus don’t so much have a problem with contemporary homily services in themselves.

I have a problem with the quality of the fluff they churn out.

Ontario jails now allowing small quantities of wine for celebrating the Eucharist to be brought into prison.

GET THE STORY.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

EXCERPTS:

A policy has now been spelled out, according to Julia Noonan, a spokeswoman with Ontario’s correctional service.

"The priest may bring in 1½-2 ounces … as needed for that day," she said.

ALSO:

"Unfortunately, it came across that we were discriminating against the Catholics and we weren’t."

In fact, she pointed out, authorities at Lindsay had also prevented Anglican clergy, including a bishop, from celebrating the Eucharist because wine was needed for the sacrament. "We were therefore discriminating against the religious rights of all Christians who use alcoholic wine for celebrating the Eucharist," she confessed.

A reader writes:

About 6-8 months ago I contacted one of the apologist at Catholic Answers regarding our Priest singing the Eucharistic (presidential) Prayers. The woman apologist (I don’t remember her name) consulted with you and the answer came back that it was acceptable. She even stated that you had researched it and found accompaniment for the prayers. [Actually, I already knew about the accompaniment. What I did was look it up and show it to her–ja] Since that time I have found in the GIRM para. 32 (The prayers and other parts pertaining to the Priest) that in fact this is not allowed. In fact on the Catholic Answers website in Redemptionis Sacramentum para. 53 reiterates the same point as the GIRM. Where did you get your information about singing the Eucharistic Prayers? This is becoming a huge issue in our church and I want to make sure I’m correct before pressing the correction of this problem.

It’s understandable why, but you appear to be misreading RS 53 and GIRM 32. Let’s look at them to see where the difficulty is. First, here’s Redemptionis Sacramentum 53:

While the Priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer “there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent”,[GIRM 32] except for the people’s acclamations that have been duly approved, as described below.

You’ll note that the passage states that there is to be no other prayers or singing going on while the priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer. It doesn’t say that he isn’t to sing (or that he isn’t to pray). This is a restriction on what other people can do during this time (note that to the general rule that the people say or sing nothing it makes an exception for the acclamations of the people that are prescribed during this time). It is not a limitation on what the priest does (unless he wanted to play a musical instrument while proclaiming the Eucharistic Prayer, God forbid).

You’ll also note that the passage being quoted is the other one you mention, GIRM 32. Here’s the text of that:

The nature of the “presidential” texts demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone listen with attention. Thus, while the priest is speaking these texts, there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent.

This is just making the point that they want the presidential texts delivered loud enough for everyone to hear, that they don’t want any competing noise so everyone can pay attention. Nothing here excludes the priest singing.

Now, you might think that that something does because this passage refers to the presidential texts being "spoken," which you might conclude excludes singing. Except that it doesn’t. Just a bit further down the road the GIRM clarifies that it’s going to use words like "say" and "proclaim" to be inclusive both of singing and recitation. Here’s GIRM 38:

In texts that are to be spoken in a loud and clear voice, whether by the priest or the deacon, or by the lector, or by all, the tone of voice should correspond to the genre of the text itself, that is, depending upon whether it is a reading, a prayer, a commentary, an acclamation, or a sung text; the tone should also be suited to the form of celebration and to the solemnity of the gathering. Consideration should also be given to the idiom of different languages and the culture of different peoples.

In the rubrics and in the norms that follow, words such as “say” and “proclaim” are to be understood of both singing and reciting, according to the principles just stated above.

Now, you might say "Wait! GIRM 32 didn’t use the word ‘say’ or ‘proclaim.’ It used the word ‘spoken’!" Leaving aside that GIRM 38 says that this applies to words such as "say" and "proclaim" and that "speak" is a word that goes in that category, you would be right. The English translation does use a different word.

Which is why it’s good to look up the Latin.

In the IGMR 38 (IGMR being the Latin GIRM), it says:

In rubricis ergo et in normis quae sequuntur, verba «dicere» vel «proferre» intellegi debent sive de cantu sive de recitatione, servatis principiis supra propositis.

And here’s the relevant bit from IGMR 32:

Natura partium «praesidentialium» exigit ut clara et elata voce proferantur . . .

As you can see, IGMR 32 uses a form of proferre. Specifically, it’s the third person plural present passive subjunctive form: "they are to be proclaimed."

So the speak/proclaim distinction is an artifact of the English translation. The Latin makes it clear that "proclaim" is being used in both cases.

The only other possible scruple I could see someone having here is that GIRM 38 refers to the "norms that follow" and one might interpret this exclusively of GIRM 32 since it is numerically earlier. That, however, would be chopping matters more finely than the authors of the text intended. They simply do not write law with that level of rigor over there. This is being written for liturgical professionals, and they expect the reader to have a sense of how things are done in the liturgy. Singing the Eucharistic Prayer has a looooong history, and so they expect the intended reader (a liturgical professioal) to recognize that the use of proferre in GIRM 32 doesn’t exclude it–particularly when people sing the Eucharistic Prayer all the time and GIRM 38 says proferre includes singing AND one other important fact . . .

. . . the Missal contains sheet music for singing the Eucharistic Prayer.

In fact, it contains a lot of sheet music. Enough to sing all four Eucharistic Prayers (plus other texts). Since seeing is believing, I thought I’d scan the first page of Eucharistic Prayer I so you can see for yourself.

So here it is  (click to enlarge), freshly scanned from the pages of my copy of the Sacramentary. You’ll note from the image that it even includes singing the words of consecration (just like in the Eastern churches).

In view of all this, it sounds as if what your priest is doing is just fine and well within the tradition and law of the Church.

Hope this helps and that it reassures folks!

A reader writes:

This has been bothering me for a while but since tomorrow’s funeral Mass for the Pope will be televised, it has galvanized my will to email you about this. Some of these may seem very trite but I have a rationale for asking.

There are no bad questions, only bad answers.

1) When I watch a Mass on TV (i.e, on EWTN, or the funeral Mass for the Pope), may I plan on having a spiritual communion when the Eucharist is distributed?

You may.

2) If I can/do have spiritual communion, is it recommended that I observe the fast for Eucharist?

It is not. The Eucharistic fast is for preparation for the sacramental reception of the Eucharist, not its spiritual reception. You can make a spiritual act of communion with Jesus (i.e., the Eucharist) at any hour of the day or night with no fasting.

3) Would it be totally illicit and/or crass to have breakfast while watching the Mass for the Pope tomorrow if I cannot/do not partake in spiritual communion during the televised Mass?

It is not illicit as there is no law against doing so. Neither would it be crass as long as one isn’t engaging in a gluttinous, debauched feast or something like that. While the impulse to ask the question displays a praiseworthy concern for propriety, you should not indulge yourself very far in that direction as it could very quickly lead one into scrupulosity. Being at home while something is on TV is not the same as being at the event itself, and the standards of conduct that would apply in the latter case simply do not apply in the former. If we don’t feel the need to get dressed up in our Sunday best to watch a funeral on TV, neither do we need to refrain from eating while it’s on.

Any and all commentary you can deliver about this would be much appreciated. You’re one in a billion, Jimmy, and I really enjoy reading your blog! Keep up the good work.

One in a billion???

You mean that there are six of me???

(NOTE TO SELF: Must track down and eliminate my five clones.)

20 (with respect to the eating questions.)

A reader writes:

A-while back in this post (HERE) you categorically state that only the ordained can proclaim the Gospel (with the two exceptions of Palm Sunday & Good Friday). As you alluded to later in this post, my parish is also suffering from a creeping tendency to involve more and more people (since January it’s gone from just the priest and a deacon to those two plus our pastoral director (female, non-ordained, non-religious)).

Before I — politely — call the priest and/or liturgy committee, is there an exact source/citation that you can provide to me about this matter? I’ve tried the Catholic Answers fora, but they also provide no precise reference to Church documents.

Here’s whatcha need: The current edition of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal which is approved, translated, and in force in the U.S. says–

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.

Also, the recently-released instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

[63.] “Within the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, the reading of the Gospel, which is “the high point of the Liturgy of the Word”, is reserved by the Church’s tradition to an ordained minister. Thus it is not permitted for a layperson, even a religious, to proclaim the Gospel reading in the celebration of Holy Mass, nor in other cases in which the norms do not explicitly permit it.

The reader also writes:

PS You mentioned last week that you plan to be in Kentucky next month. I’m in Frankfort and would welcome the chance to come hear a talk by you. Any details as yet?

Sure. I’m supposed to give my conversion story in Hopkinsville at 10 a.m. Saturday, April 23. Hope to see you there! (Will post the name of the parish later. Don’t have it handy.)

A reader writes:

A-while back in this post (HERE) you categorically state that only the ordained can proclaim the Gospel (with the two exceptions of Palm Sunday & Good Friday). As you alluded to later in this post, my parish is also suffering from a creeping tendency to involve more and more people (since January it’s gone from just the priest and a deacon to those two plus our pastoral director (female, non-ordained, non-religious)).

Before I — politely — call the priest and/or liturgy committee, is there an exact source/citation that you can provide to me about this matter? I’ve tried the Catholic Answers fora, but they also provide no precise reference to Church documents.

Here’s whatcha need: The current edition of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal which is approved, translated, and in force in the U.S. says–

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.

Also, the recently-released instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

[63.] “Within the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, the reading of the Gospel, which is “the high point of the Liturgy of the Word”, is reserved by the Church’s tradition to an ordained minister. Thus it is not permitted for a layperson, even a religious, to proclaim the Gospel reading in the celebration of Holy Mass, nor in other cases in which the norms do not explicitly permit it.

The reader also writes:

PS You mentioned last week that you plan to be in Kentucky next month. I’m in Frankfort and would welcome the chance to come hear a talk by you. Any details as yet?

Sure. I’m supposed to give my conversion story in Hopkinsville at 10 a.m. Saturday, April 23. Hope to see you there! (Will post the name of the parish later. Don’t have it handy.)