Catholic Liturgy - Dramatic Readings at Mass (And More on Processions, and Extra Hosts)

ROME, JUNE 14, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: If a reader at the Mass proclaims the passage with appropriate facial expressions, sufficient gestures of hands and right modulation of voice, only to bring out different characters and emotions concealed in the passage, would it go against the spirit of liturgy? -- M.G., Bangalore, India

A: The General Instruction of the Roman Missal touches upon this subject in No. 38 regarding "The Vocal Expression of the Different Texts":

"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."

Thus the text refers above all to tone of voice and makes no mention of accompanying a reading with facial expressions or gestures.

This would be in conformity with the traditional sobriety of the Roman Rite and with the ministerial nature of such services as reading.

The fundamental criterion is, I believe, that of service to God's Word. The task of the lector is to bring out and proclaim the sense of the divine message to the best of his or her ability while avoiding drawing attention to the person doing the reading either by dress or manner.

There is also perhaps some danger of a reader imposing his or her interpretation of the emotions concealed in the passage rather than allowing God's word to speak heart-to-heart to each member of the assembly.

Hence some variation in intonation is desirable in order to clarify the sense of the text, distinguish a question from an admonition, a cry for mercy from its granting, etc.

Using an unvarying deadpan tone, or monotonous drawl for every passage is a disservice to God's Word and to the assembly. But any hint of acting, whether by facial expressions, gestures, changing intonation or voices for different characters, should be avoided as they tend to draw attention away from the text and toward the reader.

The traditional Latin tones for singing the readings could suggest a model for reading the sacred texts, or even compose new vernacular tones for singing the Scripture as has been successfully achieved in some languages.

Singing the texts, at least on solemn occasions, reminds us that this is no ordinary text but God's Word to us. It also fixes the attention very much on the Word itself.

The traditional tones come in several variations. There are slightly different tones used for the Old Testament, the epistles and for the Gospels. Within the reading, slight variations of rhythm and intonation bring out questions and different characters so as to highlight the meaning of the text.

At the same time, the need to submit oneself to singing a simple but common tone eliminates most of the reader/cantor's personal traits while emphasizing the attitude of service to something greater than oneself.

* * *

Follow-up: Who's First in a Procession

An Ohio reader has made an interesting point with respect to my interpretation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal regarding the possibility of non-instituted lectors carrying the Gospel in the entrance processions (see May 31).

He asserts that sometimes the word "lector" is used in an expanded sense to include the commissioned reader as in GIRM, No. 135: "If no lector is present, the priest himself proclaims all the readings and the Psalm, standing at the ambo."

If this were the case it would remove all doubt as to the legitimacy of having readers who were not instituted lectors from carrying the Gospel. I think our reader's close reading of the GIRM has a high degree of probability but, even if this were not so, I still believe that it would be allowable as a custom interpretative of law.

I may be beyond my ken in venturing into canonical epistemology but, as mentioned before in our final follow-up on blessings, that is how I see the interpretation of this kind of law.

A Canadian correspondent asked about the following directive given, in the name of a bishop, by a pastor in the United States: "Ordinarily, lectors (readers), unless carrying the Book of the Gospels, and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, whose ministries are limited to specific moments, do not process, nor are they seated in the sanctuary." The correspondent asked for a possible reference to this directive.

The GIRM simply mentions "other ministers" who may participate in the procession without specifying who they are or any degree of obligation as to their participation.

No. 294 of the GIRM does indicate that, if possible, lectors should have a place in the presbytery. But that does not necessarily mean participation in the procession.

I believe that this is a prudential decision to be made at the local level in accordance with the demands of space, logistics and pastoral needs.

A bishop would be perfectly within his rights to determine which of these "other ministers" enter in procession so as to ensure a broad uniformity of practice within the diocese.

Likewise, it falls within the range of responsibilities of a pastor, in organizing the liturgy in his parish, to decide how to apply the liturgical norms to the concrete situation of his church, especially with regard to aspects where the law allows for various possibilities.

* * *

Follow-up: 2nd Batch of Hosts, Continued

Thanks be to God for our careful readers who manage to keep me orthodox in spite of myself.

In our follow-up regarding adding water to the chalice after the consecration (see May 31) I said that the corruption of the species of wine "would be practically certain to have happened if the quantity of water were more than half. In such a case, those who received this mixture would have received only Christ's Body during Communion."

The point I, maladroitly, tried to make was that the mixture no longer contained Christ's real presence. However, the phrasing could easily be understood that one did not receive the whole Christ: body, blood, soul and divinity, under the species of bread alone. Likewise, in those special cases where, for medical reasons, a person receives only the Precious Blood, he also receives the whole Christ. I apologize for any confusion or distress I may have caused.

Although receiving Communion under both species is more perfect from the point of view of the sign, and Church law now gives fairly wide leeway to bishops to grant this permission, the distribution of the Eucharist under the species of bread alone remains the ordinary mode of Communion in the Church.

I will take the opportunity to answer some other questions that arose in this context.

A Virginia reader asks: "Regarding 'homemade' bread with additional matter (other than flour and water), it is my understanding that because it is invalid matter it cannot be transubstantiated into Jesus' Body and Blood. I assume the Mass is also invalid. Is this correct?"

While there is no absolute prohibition on using homemade bread that respects the conditions for valid matter, it is usually not very practical. The making of hosts is something of an art and homemade hosts are often flaky and brittle.

If, in addition, other elements are added (for example, sugar, molasses or honey), the probability that it is no longer valid matter is very high although one would have to examine each case on its merits. As "Redemptionis Sacramentum," No. 48, says:

"The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools."

The Church requires certainty and not probability as to the validity of the sacraments. Thus, doubtful matter may never be used in any circumstances whatsoever. A priest who finds himself in such a situation should not proceed with the celebration until all doubt has been removed.

A Scottish priest asks: "Is reception under both kinds necessary for validity for clergy to have said Mass at a concelebration? Linked to that, if a priest has not received under both kinds at a Mass at which he is a concelebrant, may he still take a stipend?"

Strictly speaking, except in the case of a priest who, due to illness, has been granted special permission from the bishop to receive under one species, reception of Communion under both kinds is necessary for all concelebrants for a licit celebration. But it would not normally be required for validity as the Mass -- that is, the full consecration -- was celebrated and at least the main celebrant consumed both under both species.

Thus, if due to some accident, a concelebrant was unable to receive from the chalice, he may receive a regular stipend if this is his only Mass that day. A priest may never receive a stipend for a concelebrated Mass if he celebrates another Mass on the same day -- for example, at his parish and at a funeral. He may offer the concelebrated Mass for any intention he wishes but without receiving a stipend.

The situation of an invalid participation in a concelebration might arise if a priest where to join in, so to speak, as an uninvited guest, and where from the beginning there is no possibility of full and licit participation.

I have unfortunately seen this happen at papal Masses where attending priests pull a stole out of the pocket and pronounce the words of consecration. There are several liturgical and theological reasons to doubt the validity of this procedure although the question has not yet been addressed officially.

* * *

Well, I say King Juan Carlos based on territorial considerations, but you are right, emotionally I would be for the Jacobite claimant.

I do belong, as one of the scruffy Catholic auxiliaries, to the Society of King Charles the Martyr, the Catholic patron of which is Fr. Jean Marie Charles-Roux, IC, whom you may remember as one of the priests who said the TLM for Mel Gibson on the set of the "Passion", and later gave a couple of very interesting interviews to "Inside the Vatican". He had been stationed at St Etheldreda's in London for quite some time before going back to the mother house of the Rosminians in Rome, where he met up with Mel.

The Good Friday fast is the Paschal fast—a fast of anticipation and longing for the Passover of the Lord, which should continue, when possible, through Holy Saturday.

Didn't the Good Friday fast used to be pentitential -- not "anticipation and longing" (how does that relate to fasting -- "I was too excited to eat"? -- like a little kid on Christmas Eve?) Where did they get the notion of a "Paschal fast"? The reference to Passover would seem to indicate it has Jewish roots, but that would be a new one on me!

Fridays During Lent—In the United States, the tradition of abstaining from meat on each Friday during Lent is maintained.

The "tradition" is maintained. Does this mean it's not obligatory?

In place of abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.

Point is .... how many catholics - be honest now! - do you know who consciously substitute something else for meat on Friday?

I'm old enough to remember when this amended view was introduced. The media coverage of it, even back then, projected the notion that "catholics may now eat meat on Friday". That's the sound bite most catholics grabbed and retained. I don't recall the priests addressing this in their homilies - possibly they did - I was too young to be a 'motivated' listener back then. Actually this change came about, driven by catholics who would go to a sports game on Friday and have to forfeit eating a hot dog. Viewed from that perspective, it makes perfectly good sense that one could 'substitute' some other form of self denial on those Fridays when they went to the ball game.

Naturally, over the decades, most catholics have neglected to read up on these Canon laws and most pastors are more interested in keeping their parishioners 'happy'. This is a now a personal decision. Once you know the law, ignoring it puts you in a state of sin.

If I'm looking around my mind can develop a pharisaic thought track

Lol ... that used to happen to me at the RC parish. I would sit there in judgement of others, their actions, their words, their attire. The pastor was an especially strong source of distraction. He had this silly habit of leaving words out of the Creed or singing along with the choir during certain parts of the liturgy when he was supposed to be praying silently. Since there was no crucifix in the Sanctuary, my mind fixated weekly on whether or not we had one or two acolytes. One meant they would carry the processional cross; two meant the crucifix remained in the closet and the acolytes carried candles. No crucifix in the Sanctuary during Mass, was a violation of the GIRM. It got so bad that I would simply keep my eyes closed throughout Mass.

In all honesty, however, I constantly reminded myself of all those years when I was apathetic, ignorant and indifferent towards the Mass. And they were many. It became a humbling experience to recall those years, make penance for them and seek ways to help others to avoid them. Even now I reflect on these experiences to prevent myself from becoming prideful. I have sinned and am in no position to judge others.

I'm old enough to remember when this amended view was introduced.

Me, too. Luckily my Irish grandmother didn't live to see it -- she heartily and loudly disapproved of the routine dispensation given by the archbishop for the day after Thanksgiving and refused to serve meat anyway! Of course, I seem to recall my mother telling me that the custom in Ireland when my grandmother was growing up was to restrict oneself to black tea and dry bread on Fridays.

Given a lot of new food trends, though, I wonder if abstinence packs the punch it used to. People who actually -- and apparently by choice -- eat such things as Pop Tarts, canned tuna mixed with mustard (!) and seedless watermelon (the developer should be shot without trial IMO) must not have any taste buds or nerve endings in their mouths. ;-)

The problem is that the USCCB hasn't substituted "other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety" in place of abstinence and fasting on Fridays outside of Lent. (Under the text of the canon, they are the ones who would have to substitute, not us.)

My 19 year old daughter is good at that game too! "But 'they' didn't tell me ..... or 'they' changed the rules ....

Let those with eyes, see; let those with ears, hear. This is a personal responsibility. The secularist world is quick to point the finger of blame ... don't cave in. You have eyes and ears; you can read and hear. This is your decision, and should not be based on the USCCB's interpretation. The option of following their written directives is, of course, your option.

Over the past few decades, we seem to have lost touch with personal sacrifice. Personally, I can't find anything more beautiful in my life than the challenge of making a personal sacrifice each day and every week, for the Person who gave up all for my salvation.

“The Son of God became man in order to restore all creation, in one supreme act of praise, to the One who made it from nothing.” ... John Paul II

I'm not a lector and I don't play one on T.V. ;-)

In the Ruthenian rite (Byzantine Catholic) church I've taken to of late, they take the Lector's duties very seriously. Lectors are actually ordained minor orders in the church. So they wear vestments, and have specific duties in chanting the readings.

Our lector as a person is an incredible resource of information and history about the church.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.