Home | Join/Donate | Adoremus Bulletin |Archive | Index | Church Documents | Architecture | Posture | Music | Translation | What's NEW? | FAQ | Search Site
Online Edition - Vol. VIII, No. 7: October 2002
About Letters to the EditorREADERS' FORUMReaders' Forum -- the lively "Letters to the Editor" of the Adoremus Bulletin provides a forum for exchange of ideas, comment and information on the sacred liturgy -- but the letters column is not published online. (Special! All letters from October 2002 issue are online).
If you are reading the Adoremus Bulletin in the "online edition" only, you are missing one of the most popular and useful features of the journal. To become a member of Adoremus -- and receive the "hard-copy" edition, including the "Readers Forum", see Membership page.
We are grateful for your letters. While we read every letter, we get so many that it is impossible to answer or publish all of them. In selecting those to appear in "Readers Forum", preference will be given to subjects of widest interest. Letters should be 250 words or fewer, preferably typed. They may be e-mailed. Please include your name, address, city and state (which may be withheld on request). If a letter refers to a previous issue of AB, please include the date of that issue and name of article. All letters may be edited for publication. Be sure to indicate clearly if your letter is NOT intended for publication.
Readers' Forum for October 2002 -- On Post-1965 Songs -- Taize and Labyrinths -- Books use wrong version of the Bible -- No kneeling? What are we to do? -- What about bells? -- Does the "Children's Mass" justify changing words? -- Does unity mean "togetherness"? -- Eucharist for the sick -- Kneeling, genuflecting at Adoration -- What kind of liturgical influences? -- Thin soup -- Where's the New IGMR? -- Placement of altar candles -- Omit the Kyrie? -- The Lord's Prayer Doxology -- Book of Gospels -- About Lectors
On Post-1965 Songs
In a letter to the editor in the February 2002 Adoremus Bulletin, Nicholas Stellhorn wondered why the editors of The Adoremus Hymnal had not seen fit to include any hymns composed after 1965. As one who is subjected every week to some of the contemporary music that Mr. Stellhorn endorses, I am inclined to think that the editors were merely exercising good judgment. At its best some of this music is tolerable; at its worst it is execrable.As a composer I would prefer to pass judgment only on the music, not the texts, that I choose not to sing but, unfortunately, must listen to each week. As a composer who has also taught undergraduates for thirty-nine years, I would have graded very few of these examples above a gentlemen's C-minus. There are reasons, for example, why Sebastian Temple's "Prayer of Saint Francis", which is on Mr. Stellhorn's preferred list but which I would rate no better than a C, should be retired, not least of all because of the monotony of its repeated notes and its interminable sequences, but also because, with its constantly changing rhythm, made necessary by its choice of a non-metrical text, a congregation cannot sing the music together whenever the measures containing these changes appear in this hymn.
Also on Mr. Stellhorn's list is Lucien Deiss's "All the Earth", which, as waltzes go, is pretty enough, but why would anyone attend Mass in order to sing a waltz when outside of the Church there are countless waltzes that are far better than anything that Lucien Deiss can compose?
Readers of the Adoremus Bulletin, I dare say, could similarly dispatch the remainder of his list, but if Mr. Stellhorn fears that the editors of The Adoremus Hymnal may "run the risk of telling future generations: God no longer inspires liturgical music" by not including this music, my response is: Why don't the publishers of hymnals invite composers who have already achieved something of note in their professions to compose hymns?
As for writers like David Haas or Michael Joncas, both of whom were cited by Mr. Stellhorn as composers whose work should have been included, aren't they partially responsible for why Catholic hymnody since 1965 is in such a deplorable state? If they were a part of the problem that we are now facing to begin with, how can they now be part of any solution?
Allen Brings
Wilton, Connecticut
Taize and Labyrinths
Our parish council head is promoting several forms of worship (all held at non-Catholic churches in the area) and encouraging our body to participate -- specifically Taize and the Labyrinth.I am familiar with both forms of worship and their origins, but am asking for the Church's official position on them.
Would you please respond as soon as possible since these services and programs are being actively promoted through bulletin announcements at this time.
Laetitia Offutt
Yuba City, CaliforniaRe Taize: This is a Protestant monastic community that has developed a form of chant and prayer that has been "borrowed" for use for services in Catholic churches. Especially in the realm of music, there has been frequent borrowing -- some of it excellent, some not so good -- from sources outside the Catholic Church.
Re Labyrinth: Merely as a floor decoration, there is nothing wrong with labyrinth patterns - any more than with patterns of checks or stripes. However, these labyrinth designs are now intended to be used for spiritual "exercises" that are alien to Catholic teaching and authentic Catholic spirituality. You have doubtless seen some of these "spirituality" schemes that employ labyrinths in publications and on the Internet. Usually they are "New Age", feminist-inspired, and quasi-occult. Since you know the history of the labyrinth, you know that in medieval Europe, labyrinths (such as the one at Chartres cathedral) were used as a sort of substitute for a real pilgrimage to the Holy Land and shrines along the pilgrimage route, and authentically Christian prayers and devotions were part of the imitation "journey" to Jerusalem. Alas, the current "revival" of the labyrinth as a "spiritual device" is not grounded in genuinely Christian piety.
There is no official Catholic position specifically on Taize materials that we know of; but the Church's position on participation in worship with other Christian bodies is discussed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 811-822, and in a 1993 Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism published by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.
Comments on the Church's relations with non-Christian bodies (such as Eastern religions) is found in the Catechism, paragraphs 839-845.
All superstitious and occult practices or "spiritualities" are inimical to the Catholic faith, and are mentioned in the Catechism, paragraphs 2110-2140.
Books use wrong version of the Bible
Thank you for your continued work on behalf of the often beleaguered troops out here in the pews!I am in the midst of a brewing battle over the use of At Home With the Word, published by Liturgy Training Publications, which uses the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translation of the Bible, along with some rather biased reflections and suggestions on how to live out the messages in the readings.
Last Advent, our pastor ordered copies of At Home for the entire parish (12,000 copies!) so that the people might have a resource with which to prepare themselves for the Sunday readings.
(I truly suspect that there was, and still is, more to his motive, knowing that he is a supporter of the feminist-inspired "inclusive language" campaign.)
Jim McGuire
Akron, OhioThe Holy See's reasons for rejecting the NRSV were not enunciated in the 1994 letter to Cardinal Keeler; however, so-called "inclusive language" was one of the reasons -- as it was for rejecting the 1991 translation of the New American Bible Psalms as a base text for the US Lectionary. Liturgiam authenticam, the Instruction on translation issued in 2001 might provide insight about the considerations involved in judging translations.
Since the NRSV translation is not permitted for use in the Liturgy, it should not be used, either, for parish study resources.
No kneeling? What are we to do?
I am a daily communicant and kneel to receive Christ's Body and Blood. I am the only communicant at Mass who receives in this posture. I am always the last one to receive (in order to avoid creating any problems). Thus far, I have never been refused Holy Communion.I live in the Los Angeles area and I assume that with the approval of the "American Adaptations" to the IGMR as presented in the June 2002 issue of the Adoremus Bulletin, the provisions of the adaptations concerning the posture for receiving the Eucharist (i.e. standing only) will be promulgated to all parishes.
It has been my impression that the Vatican has desired that the option for reverential kneeling to receive be kept available. Does the "American Adaptations" document go against this desire of the Vatican? If so, how valid is that stance?
The last portion of the article about Lafayette Bishop William Higi states "Should a person insist on kneeling for the reception of Holy Communion, Communion will not be denied but they clearly will be demonstrating dissent from the mind of the Church. Rather than reverence, the emphasis will be refusal to embrace particular law approved by the Vatican for the United States".
It seems to me that the bishop(s) are the ones demonstrating dissent from the mind of the Church. Has the "American Adaptations" document been approved by the Vatican? If not, then the comment about "refusal to embrace particular law approved by the Vatican" is without substance and is an intimidating threat to enforce compliance .
Can you guide me as to what options might be available to me and others caught in this same dilemma?
All for the greater honor and glory of God Almighty,
Edmond J. Bronner
Palos Verdes Estates, CaliforniaThe problem is in the interpretation of the rules, not the rules themselves, as we see it.
In at least one diocese the bishop recently issued a statement that the people may kneel and/or make other gestures of reverence before receiving Communion. Another -- a cardinal -- wrote a response to a similar question from an individual in July, saying that the person could choose to stand or kneel, or genuflect, citing the Holy See's explicit admonition to the bishops not to deny Communion to anyone who knelt to receive.
Since there is no uniform interpretation of the adaptation by the diocesan bishops, the "norm" itself appears doubtful. We are praying for a resolution of this distressing confusion over standing, kneeling and "gesture of reverence" -- and one that respects the piety of all persons in their expression of unity of belief in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
See the Congregation for Divine Worship's letter on this topic, published in the December 2002 - January 2003 AB.
(We will gladly send a copy of Novena for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy to anyone who requests it. )
What about bells?
I found this response on the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy (BCL) website distressing:"Bells at Mass"
"The ringing of bells during the Eucharistic Prayer is no longer required by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. In a day when the people could neither see nor hear what the priest was doing, bells provided a 'signal' that something important was about to happen. This need is no longer present".
"The Order of Mass shows a keen appreciation for the Eucharistic Prayer as the one 'great prayer' of priest and people. It is indeed the entire Eucharistic Prayer which is consecratory. In order to foster an appreciation of this seamless character of the Eucharistic Prayer, the ringing of bells is optional".
I love hearing the bells during the Consecration of the Mass because it reminds me to focus on this special part of the Mass. This no longer happens in my parish. Will this practice return? I noticed when the pope went to Poland, there was a magnificent fanfare at the Elevation.
Why did the person who wrote the response focus on the "seamless character" of the Eucharistic Prayer?
Why is it that inserting numerous sung acclamations during the Eucharistic Prayer is okay, yet traditional and officially sanctioned customs must be stamped out? Also, one rarely seldom sees the censings and torches at the consecration that are called for in the GIRM and the Ceremonial of Bishops.
Name Withheld
CaliforniaWe have received several letters on the ringing of "Sanctus bells". Here is what the Missal says:
IGMR 150: "A little before the consecration, a minister rings a bell as a signal to the faithful. Depending on local custom, the minister also rings the bell at the showing of both the Eucharistic bread and the chalice.
"If incense is used, a minister incenses the host and the chalice when they are shown to the people after the Consecration".
This certainly has the effect of calling our attention to the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord -- the culmination of the entire Mass.
Ringing bells emphasizes solemnity of this moment and our profound joy at receiving this Inestimable Gift to mankind.
Most people who take pains to emphasize the "seamlessness" of the Eucharistic Prayer do not believe that the miraculous transformation takes place at the moment that the words of Consecration are spoken by the priest. In their opinion, it is not this action of the priest, but the participation of the entire congregation that effects "Eucharist".
Inserting acclamations during the Eucharistic Prayer is NOT okay - though some argue that since this has been permitted experimentally for the so-called "Children's Mass", it should be done at any Mass. (The worth of the "Children's Mass" is currently being re-evaluated.)
The effect of this tinkering is to de-sacralize the Mass. It reflects a desire to tame the supernatural, to collapse the transcendent into our own time, and to "domesticate" God by making Him a partner in our cause.
Does the "Children's Mass" justify changing words?
I noticed at a Mass in Rochester's Sacred Heart Cathedral (where Bishop Fulton Sheen preached) that the priest said, during the Consecration: "He broke bread and gave it to His friends and said" ... and "Again He gave You thanks and praise, gave the cup to His friends"...After Mass I pointed out to the priest that the word should be "disciples" not "friends".
He corrected me saying the Eucharistic Prayer for the Children's Mass permits this change in wording. Is this so? (This was not a children's Mass.)
Michael F. Brennan
The "Children's Mass" does say "friends"; it also interrupts the canon of the Mass (the Eucharistic Prayer) with "acclamations" spoken by the congregation ("Jesus has given his life for us".) But this is to be used only for Masses with young children or where the congregation is predominantly young children. It is not to be used for any other occasions.
Some use the devices in the "Children's Mass" as justification for improvising changes in other Mass texts, as you have experienced. This is unwarranted and illegitimate.
There is also a "Children's Lectionary", which uses a simplified translation, the Contemporary English Version, a product of the American Bible Society.
Though many regard this version as silly and inappropriate even for children, this Lectionary has been in "experimental" use since 1992. Some bishops seriously question the wisdom of having separate texts for children, however, in November 2000, the conference agreed to review the "process". It is scheduled for review at the USCCB meeting this November.
(See Adoremus Bulletin, "Do We Really Need a Children's Lectionary?", February 2001.)
Does unity mean "togetherness"?
I have just read the Committee on the Liturgy, May 22, 2002 document of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "The Reception of Holy Communion at Mass".Let me quote the part that troubles me: "The General Instruction of the Roman Missal ... mandat[es] that [the Communion hymn] should begin at the Communion of the priest and extend until the last person has received Communion".
It also says that Communion is not at all a time to experience a personal moment with Christ and a silent thanksgiving for His Presence. It even indicates that this would be selfish and that singing the Communion song is a necessary expression of unity.
It seems to me that we can be "one" without every moment doing the same thing together. Or couldn't we do the same thing together -- silently contemplate and worship Jesus?
Is this document a matter of obedience? Has the Holy Spirit truly inspired it? Please help me to understand.
Alison
Washington"The Reception of Holy Communion at Mass" is not official Church teaching. Rather, it is a commentary that reflects the opinion of its authors on the regulations in the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (IGMR) -- rather like an editorial. These commentaries should not be mistaken for liturgical law.
On singing during Communion, the IGMR states:
86. During the priest's reception of the Sacrament of Communion, the chant is begun. This singing is meant to express the communicants' union in spirit by means of the unity of their voices, to give evidence of joy of heart and to highlight the "communitarian" character of the Communion procession. The singing continues as long as the faithful are receiving the Sacrament. If there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion chant should be ended at a suitable time.
87. [Four alternatives are given for the US Church - see Adaptations to IGMR, p 6]
If there is no singing, the Communion Antiphon in the Missal may be recited either by the faithful, or by a group of them, or by a reader. Otherwise the priest himself says it after he has received Communion and before he gives Communion to them.
88. When the distribution of Communion is finished, as circumstances allow, the priest and faithful spend some time praying silently. If desired, a Psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may be sung by the entire congregation.
Thus it is an exaggeration to say that the IGMR "mandates" singing by the entire congregation during or after Communion; and a period of private prayer after Communion is specified.
Eucharist for the sick
As an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist, I bring communion to shut-ins. If the sick person is unable to receive the Eucharist, am I bound by the regulation that requires the second reception of the Eucharist to take place within the celebration of Mass, and therefore cannot consume the Host but must return it to the tabernacle? Or may I consume the Host under these circumstances?
Ernest
via e-mailYou may consume the Host in such a situation; however if there is any question about the sick person's ability to receive, it would be wise to call in advance.
Kneeling, genuflecting at Adoration
The new priest in our parish has said that he is telling people not to genuflect on both knees at Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. He said that is no longer done and says from now on one knee only.He also said that people just want to draw attention to themselves when they go down on two knees. Is he correct about genuflecting on one knee? We will be waiting for your reply.
S. M. Magdalene
The Latin word for "kneel" is "genuflect". There is no distinction, in Latin, between what we call "genuflecting" and kneeling. However, by custom, besides regular kneeling, there is a double genuflection (very brief kneeling on both knees) and a single genuflection (one knee). A single genuflection fulfills the basic requirement for a gesture of reverence acknowledging Christ's presence in the Exposed Blessed Sacrament as one enters for adoration - or takes leave afterwards.
Observing the minimum requirement does not rule out the more solemn "double genuflection", which is a time-honored tradition among Catholics.
The point is to express externally and visibly our interior disposition to worship Our Lord and Savior.
This greater solemnity of bodily gesture is appropriate to the solemnity of the Exposition of the Body of Christ in the monstrance. It is an expression of profound worship and adoration, which acknowledges -- and is directed solely toward -- the sacred Body of Jesus Christ our Lord. To regard a genuine expression of piety as an "attention-getting device" is mistaken and unjust.
During Exposition and Adoration, everyone kneels (on both knees) for a period of prayer immediately after entering the pew - as we do when we enter the pew before Mass. Even people who physically cannot genuflect or kneel make the most profound gesture of adoration they can before Christ's unique presence in the Blessed Sacrament.
What kind of liturgical influences?
I was reading the online Adoremus Bulletin (while my wife hangs on to our subscription copy) and I noticed that the same Father John Huels whose abuse of Michael Bland is reported in your article ("Influential Priest-Canonist is Abuser of Member of Bishops Review Board") is cited in the Reader's Forum as an example of the liturgists who cling to the proposition that the "Hail Mary" is incompatible with the General Intercessions. He is indeed an "influential priest-canonist" and I, for one, am deeply suspicious of that influence. Thank you for your article on him. While we must not wish evil on another, no matter what his failings, it is important to know things that reflect on a reputed authority's credibility.Chris Cummings
via e-mailOne certainly takes no pleasure in reporting such things. However, as you observe, it is important, and not irrelevant to their view of the Church, her teachings and her laws. You cannot separate Catholic Liturgy from Catholic life -- or the moral from the sacramental law.
(Recall recent similar revelations about Michael Spillane, for many years executive director of the FDLC, Kenneth Martin, the former associate director of the secretariat for the Committee on the Liturgy at the USCCB, Archbishop Weakland, and other liturgists.)
Thin soup
I was poking about on the Adoremus website and see that the final official "adaptation" says that notwithstanding the US "norm" for standing to receive Communion, a person who kneels may not be denied Communion, though he must be "catechized" on why he should stop being reverent.My wife and I spent a weekend in rural Virginia and attended the local Arlington diocese parish, where the young monsignor only changed words a small bit in the liturgy. Oh, but the sermon, the utterly barren and shapeless vestments, the bizarrely unsuffering Corpus on the main crucifix, the happy-clappy folk tunes, all brought vividly to mind "the lukewarm I spew out of my mouth". It reminds me that I'm spoiled in my own parish -- and that it is simply a miracle Americans still go to Church, when it offers them so very, very little to chew on.
Scott Walter
Washington, DCThe message to the Church at Laodicea in Revelations 3 speaks sharply to Christians who are not faithful and true witnesses of the Truth, who are "neither cold nor hot" but "lukewarm" (Rev. 3:15,16), and is well worth reviewing in our troubled time.
The kneeling/standing issue is a pervasive and growing problem. The BCL Newsletter states that kneeling to receive Communion is "illicit" in the US, while some dioceses are requiring the faithful to stand during the entire Eucharistic Prayer despite the clear rule to the contrary.
Usually these demands are justified in the name of "unity". But there is no unity. Unhappily, as some bishops warned during their discussion of these matters (in 1995 and 2001), the US Church is being "balkanized" by conflicting opinions of those in authority.
Where's the New IGMR?
At the next Liturgy Committee meeting of our parish in October we are going to be discussing some of the new changes to the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (IGMR). We have searched the Internet for a final approved English version and have not found it. We can find some commentaries, but not the text itself. Do you know where we might find this so we can have it on hand for the meeting in October?John and Dorothy Agnew
via e-mailYou do have a problem. As yet there is no approved English translation of the IGMR. So we're in a very confusing situation.
1) The IGMR is in effect, along with its American Adaptations;
2) But there is no official English version of the IGMR;
3) Without the IGMR, there's no context for understanding the American Adaptations, which modify the IGMR.
Meanwhile, some bishops are enforcing some aspects of IGMR and/or American Adaptations; but not others. Some dioceses are making other changes not in IGMR or American Adaptations. And some liturgists are "interpreting" the rules as they see fit.
Adding to the confusion, are unofficial explanations of the documents in liturgical publications and workshops.
Thus we think it would be wise to put off discussion of the IGMR, for the present, as things are in considerable disarray.
Alternative: Study one of the several recent documents on the liturgy - say, the new Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (released recently by the Congregation for Divine Worship), or Misericordia Dei, the papal document on Confession issued a couple of months ago. Or maybe the doctrinal statement on the Real Presence issued by the USCCB last November.
Check the Vatican web site, or our "Documents" section on this web site.
Placement of altar candles
I am from the Diocese of Des Moines, Iowa, and several parishes here are involved in a very odd practice: instead of placing the two altar candles on either side of the main altar during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, they are both placed close together off to one side! I do not know what to make of this, as it is extremely unattractive and unbalanced. Any clue as to what this arrangement is supposed to mean? Is it an abuse?A.T.
West Des Moines, IowaAccording to the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (IGMR), the two candles that are carried in the entrance procession are to be placed "either on the altar or near it" (307). Where tall processional candlesticks are used, they ordinarily look best placed one at either end of the altar. At the Gospel, if there is a procession, the candles would be carried to the ambo (pulpit) when the Gospel is proclaimed, then carried back again to the altar for the rest of the Mass.
In some sanctuary configurations it may not be possible to place the processional candlesticks flanking the altar (or ambo) "in a way suited to the design of the altar and the sanctuary". The priest, servers, and lector must be able to walk around the altar, to the priest's chair and ambo. So it would be within the rules to place the processional candlesticks together on one side of the altar or ambo in a prominent place. Other candles may be placed in the chancel on shelves or small tables elsewhere in the chancel, possibly flanking the Tabernacle (see 117 below).
Following are the relevant paragraphs of the IGMR (study translation) relating to the use and placement of candles:
307 Candles are required at every liturgical service as a sign of reverence and of the festiveness of the celebration (see n. 117). The candlesticks are to be placed either on or around the altar in a way suited to the design of the altar and the sanctuary so that everything may be well balanced and not interfere with the faithful's clear view of what takes place at the altar or is placed upon it.
117 ... On or next to the altar are to be candlesticks with lighted candles, at least two in every celebration, or even four or six, especially if a Sunday Mass or Mass or on a holy day of obligation. If the diocesan Bishop celebrates, then seven candles should be used. Also on or close to the altar there is to be a cross with a figure of Christ crucified. Furthermore, the candles and the cross adorned with the figure of Christ crucified may also be carried in the entrance procession. The Book of the Gospels, distinct from the book of other readings, may be placed on the altar, unless it is carried in the entrance procession.
122 ... The candlesticks are placed on the altar or near it; the Book of the Gospels is laudably placed on the altar.
Omit the Kyrie?
Is it ever permissible to omit the Kyrie from Mass with exception of when the Sprinkling Rite is used?Thanks for all that you do.
The Rev. Mr. Michael L. Kennedy
Gainesville, GeorgiaThe Kyrie must always follow the penitential rite of the Mass unless: 1) it has already been included in the form of penitential rite used, or 2) the Mass is immediately preceded by the Divine Office.
The Lord's Prayer Doxology
I'm hoping you'll know the answer to this because I can't seem to find it in the Catechism or the GIRM.The Roman Catholic tradition for saying the Lord's Prayer is to allow a priestly interjection of "deliver us, Lord" ... before we say the doxology. My question is if that is a requirement or simply a tradition.
I have never been to a Catholic Church where they don't follow that tradition, but we had a visiting choir with us this weekend, and they all kept on going in the Protestant style when the rest of us stopped to wait for the Priest - so I am wondering if perhaps not all Catholics do the "Catholic thing"!
The only references I've found are from the Catechism (2854-2855), and this quote from a random web page: "After the Second Vatican Council, Roman Catholics added a version of the doxology ('For thine is the kingdom', etc.) to prayer when used in the Mass".
So do you know the answer, or do you know where I can find an answer?
Thanks so much!
Sandra
via e-mailThis is not just a custom. It is in the Missal (the big red book used for Mass). The "Deliver us Lord, we beg you" ... that the priest says must precede the "doxology" ("For the kingdom and the power"...) Perhaps the visiting choir was not a Catholic choir?
Book of Gospels
What is the procedure at the Recessional regarding the Book of Gospels? I am familiar with the items in the Sacramentary but while specific as to the Processional, it seems vague for the Recessional as far as I can tell. Are there other Church documents on this point?Thank you for all your efforts. Adoremus should be required reading in every seminary and diocese!
Joseph A. Carotenuti
via e-mailThe Book of Gospels may be carried in the entrance procession or, alternatively, may be placed on the altar before Mass begins. After the Gospel is read, the Book of Gospels is placed on a shelf in the pulpit (ambo) or moved to a credence table. It is not carried out in the final procession (recessional).
About Lectors
The July-August 2002 Adoremus Bulletin contained an editorial response on the letters page concerning non-Catholics reading the Sacred Scriptures at Mass. The AB cited Ad Totam Ecclesiam of May 14, 1967, which forbids the practice.On May 25, 1993, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity opened the door to the practice when it issued its Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism.
The Directory distinguishes between "Eastern Christians" and those descended from the Protestants: "Catholics may read lessons at a sacramental liturgical celebration in the Eastern Churches if they are invited to do so. An Eastern Christian may be invited to read the lessons at similar services in Catholic Churches" (no. 126). This is in recognition of the validity of their Eucharist and their preservation of Apostolic Succession.
In reference to the Protestants, no. 133 states: "The reading of Scripture during a Eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church is to be done by members of that Church. On exceptional occasions and for a just cause, the Bishop of the diocese may permit a member of another Church or ecclesial Community to take on the task of reader".
It should not be presumed by the priest celebrant that there is blanket permission to permit such participation by the non-Catholics mentioned in no. 133. In our diocese, for example, the bishop's secretary for the Liturgy has confirmed that explicit permission from the bishop is certainly required, pursuant to the directive from Rome.
The Rev. Francis M. de Rasa
Diocese of Arlington, VirginiaYou are right. Thank you for pointing this out. Relevant passages in this Directory are:
118. In liturgical celebrations taking place in other Churches ["Eastern"] and ecclesial Communities, Catholics are encouraged to take part in the psalms, responses, hymns and common actions of the church in which they are guests. If invited by their hosts, they may read a lesson or preach.
133. The reading of Scripture during a Eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church is to be done by members of that Church. On exceptional occasions and for a just cause, the Bishop of the diocese may permit a member of another Church or ecclesial Community to take on the task of reader.
134. In the Catholic Eucharistic Liturgy, the homily which forms part of the liturgy itself is reserved to the priest or deacon, since it is the presentation of the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian living in accordance with Catholic teaching and tradition.
135. For the reading of Scripture and preaching during other than Eucharistic celebrations, the norms given above (n. 118) are to be applied.
**Adoremus operates solely on your generous donations. See the bottom of the Join Page for instructions to give by credit card using Network for Good.**
Site Copyright © 1999 - Present by Adoremus
All rights reserved.PERMISSION GUIDELINES
All material on this web site is copyrighted and may not be copied or reproduced without prior written permission from Adoremus, except as specified below:Personal use
Permission is granted to download and/or print out articles for personal use only.Quotations
Brief quotations (ca 500 words) may be made from the material on this site, in accordance with the “fair use” provisions of copyright law without prior permission. For these quotations proper attribution must be made of author and Adoremus + URL (i.e., Adoremus or Adoremus Bulletin – www.adoremus.org.)Attribution
Generally, all signed articles or graphics must also have the permission of the author. If a text does not have an author byline, Adoremus should be listed as the author. For example: Adoremus (St Louis: Adoremus, 2005 + URL)Link to Adoremus web site.
Other web sites are welcome to establish links to www.adoremus.org or to individual pages within our site.
Home | Join/Donate | Adoremus Bulletin |Archive | Index | Church Documents | Architecture | Posture | Music | Translation | What's NEW? | FAQ | Search Site