The introduction of the third edition of the Roman Missal and the new translations of the liturgical texts offer the entire English-speaking Church an opportunity to correct some bad liturgical habits that have developed over the past four decades.
The point of these corrections is neither liturgical prissiness nor aesthetic nostalgia; there is no “reform of the reform” to be found in lace surplices, narrow fiddleback chasubles and massive candles.
The point of correcting bad habits is to celebrate the Novus Ordo of Paul VI with dignity and beauty, so that holy Mass is experienced for what it is: our participation in the liturgy of saints and angels in heaven — where, I am quite confident, they don’t sing treacly confections like Gather Us In.
Celebrants (not “presiders”): If you’ve fallen into the bad habit of concluding Mass by some variant of “May almighty God bless us all, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” please cease and desist. You were not ordained to the ministry of Word and sacrament to invoke, generically, the divine blessing, which anyone can (and should) do before and after meals; you were given the power to confer the divine blessing by being configured to Christ in holy orders.
Catholics who embrace the truth of Catholic faith do not enjoy clericalism. But they do not find comfort, much less evangelical leadership, from priests who imagine they can avoid clericalism by unwittingly denying the truth of their own sacramental vocation and its distinctiveness.
Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist: The same admonition applies to you, but in a different way — you must not offer a “blessing,” in any form, to pre-first-Communion children who join their parents in the Communion procession.
Eucharistic ministers are not junior-grade clergy or petty officers; no one outside of those in holy orders should “bless” in a liturgical context. Again, this is not a matter of prissiness, and still less one of clericalism; it is a matter of doctrinal and theological precision — which, if lost, can damage the celebration of the sacred liturgy.
Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist are vastly overused in U.S. parishes, a practice that risks of signaling that the Mass is a matter of the self-worshipping community celebrating and feeding itself. But the problem of the ordinary use of what is supposed, after all, to be “extraordinary” can be addressed another time.
For now, pastors must make it clear that no one blesses children during the Communion procession except bishops, priests and deacons, i.e., those in holy orders.
Music directors and pastors: As a general rule, sing all the verses of a processional or recessional hymn.
Good hymns have a textual integrity that is lost when we sing hymn excerpts rather than hymns. It doesn’t take that much more time to sing all six verses of For All the Saints or all four verses of Crown Him With Many Crowns; cutting such great texts by two-thirds or one-half inevitably sends the signal that music in the liturgy is filler — and there is no room for filler in the sacred liturgy.
The Congregation: Sacred space is different from other space; the inside of the church is different from the narthex (not “gathering space”).
Thus we should all break the bad habit of commencing the post-Mass conversation immediately after the conclusion of the recessional hymn or organ postlude. Wait until you leave the interior of the church before beginning to chat with the neighbors.
If there is a choral postlude, chatting over it is an insult to the choir, which has worked hard to prepare something beautiful for God; if there is only an organ postlude (with or without a recessional hymn), chatting over it is an insult to the organist. Thirty seconds of silence after Mass is no bad thing.
And while we’re on the subject of the congregation, might we all reconsider our vesture at Sunday Mass?
Dressing in one’s “Sunday best” was not an affectation; it was an acknowledgment of our baptismal dignity.
Let’s reclaim that dignity and its expression in our “Sunday best.”
George Weigel is distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Weigel’s column is distributed by the Denver Catholic Register, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Denver.
Edward Pentin: Parishes Worldwide Prepare for Eucharistic Adoration Hour
Jimmy Akin: 10 things you need to know about Holy Thursday
Comments
Post a Comment
While I agree with most of Mr. Wiegel’s commentary, he needs to use the language that the Church uses rather than perpetuate misnomers. We do not have Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist. The proper term, as noted in the GIRM and in Redemptionis Sacramentum, is Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
Second, while I can understand some of his consternation about the hymn, the hymn is actually the fourth option granted to us in the American adaptation of the GIRM. The default is the usage of the Introit, the Propers, if you will, as found in the Roman Gradual.
Regarding the blessing imparted during Communion, these should not be done at all, neither by the clergy nor the EMHC. The CDWDS released five very important observations as to why these should not be done.
I appreciate Mr. Wiegel’s concern for the liturgy, as I share it, too. However, we need to be better informed as to what the Church allows and does not allow.
Yes! Where has the reverence and respect for God and his house been? Parishioners seem to hold the attitude that God ought to be grateful they are there, in whatever clothes, with whatever behavior. They want to be entertained, amazed and impressed - not to offer humbly their worship and praise to God.
The anthropocentric, protestantized liturgy of Paul VI will die anyway as soon as the modernists who invented and sustain it are gone. Why wait? Put on your Sunday best, as Mr. Weigel describes it, and go to the Tridentine Mass/Gregorian Mass/Usus Antiquior/“Extraordinary Form”/Vetus Ordo/Mass of All Ages, take your pick on what you call it. And ladies, don’t forget the chapel veil.
In no time the hand holding, happy clappy, EMHC’s, altar girls, communion in the hand, improper attire, chattiness and irreverence will all be a distant and unpleasant memory.
“For now, pastors must make it clear that no one blesses children during the Communion procession except bishops, priests and deacons, i.e., those in holy orders.
Music directors and pastors: As a general rule, sing all the verses of a processional or recessional hymn.”
Mr. Weigel, frankly this is being a bit silly. What are we supposed to do when kids come up with their family in line for communion, shrug our shoulders? And give me a break about singing EVERY verse of a loooong hymn.
It is true we could skip having the eucharistic ministers at mass, and then the poor priest and deacon end up with a huge line and have it take 30 minutes just to distribute communion.
There is no theological basis for any of these matters. By the way, you were specific about not blessing kids at communion. Does that mean you think it is OK to bless adults (e.g. non Catholic family members and freinds) in the communion line who come up for a blessing?
I am thinking up the practical ways to employ some of this. We could put up signs in the aisle indicating that kids not receiving communion are to get in the “priest” line or “deacon” line for a blessing.
I consider myself a conservative, orthodox catholic, but some of this stuff strikes me as being ultra-orthodox. John Paul II was Pope when we were trained as eucahristic ministers to freely give blessings, and I hardly think he was a flaming liberal.
I enjoy your political commentary; however I don’t agree that some of these practices are inimical to the Catholic Faith.
Re the phenomenon of “blessing” in Communion processions:
The Communion line is not a place for receiving blessings (except for the Eucharist). A child may accompany the parent, but we are confusing sacramental theology and sacramentals when we administer blessings in the Communion line (that is what the Postcommunion rite is for). And those not going to Communion simply should not be in that line. The practice in some churches of pew after pew emptying out and taking a stroll, some with hands folded if not receiving, is an abuse and should stop. Like extraordinary ministers, it grossly misconceives our Eucharistic theology.
We can’t dispense without the Eucharistic Ministers because then, there would be no Mass. With all due respect to Mr. Wiegel, bishops and priests are Eucharistic Ministers because they confect the Sacrament. Bishops, priests and deacons are Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. The laity who assist in the distribution of Holy Communion are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. We need to use the terms that the Church gives us.
At the parish I attend near where I work, I love it when the bishop gives a sign of the cross to the congregation in the recession.
Also, no applause for the choir when they conclude the post-Communion hymn (if one is done)! Especially for the children’s choir. (Surely they’ve got a music recital at some point during the school year—parents and relatives can clap all they like there) Just a simple thanks from the priest and on to the closing.
I like the blessing the priest gives at my parish. He says to children and those that do not receive Communion, “May the Lord that began a good work in you bring it to completion”.
Lovely article! As an Extraordinary Minister I have never “blessed” anyone, however I have said: “receive the Lord Jesus in your heart” to those that indicate that they cannot receive holy Eucharist. To my understanding this does not imply or impart a blessing.
Unfortunately,without meaning to, Mr. Wiegel has inadvertedly opened up a can of worms. Here is the statement from the Congregation for Divine Worship dated November 22, 2008 (Protocol No. 930/08/L):
1. The liturgical blessing of the Holy Mass is properly given to each and to all at the conclusion of the Mass, just a few moments subsequent to the distribution of Holy Communion.
2. Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest (cf. Ecclesia de Mysterio, Notitiae 34 (15 Aug. 1997), art. 6, § 2; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).
3. Furthermore, the laying on of a hand or hands — which has its own sacramental significance, inappropriate here — by those distributing Holy Communion, in substitution for its reception, is to be explicitly discouraged.
4. The Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio n. 84, “forbids any pastor, for whatever reason to pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry”. To be feared is that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression that the divorced and remarried have been returned, in some sense, to the status of Catholics in good standing.
5. In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).
While some may argue that this is private correspondence, the five reasons are found in both liturgical and canonical law. While I respect Mr. Wiegel, his comments on this particular matter leave a lot of important information out. The fact that not a few respondents seem to support these blessings leads me to believe that there is a dire lack of liturgical catechesis in the ministerial training offered in parishes and dioceses.
To those who say “receive the Lord Jesus in your heart”: While this is a well-meaning gesture, it is inappropriate and misplaced. We form a line to receive Jesus in Holy Communion. It is uncharitable to do something that we are not authorized to do because this breeds confusion.
Just a quick thanks to Michelle for enlightening those of us who agree, but did not have the documentary evidence at hand. I used to be an EMofHC but that was for a short time. I won’t volunteer for it anymore because I see this post abused all the time at Mass in our parish. I don’t even look forward anymore, but keep my head lowered in prayer of thanks after receiving Our Lord in Holy Communion, so that I don’t have to witness the abuses, and all the confusion, along with the lack of reverance paid to Jesus. I hope things change, but maybe a document from Rome has to be mandated again in order for priests and liturgical ministers to fully implement what was always expected, but lost its way in the last 40 years. Too much invaded the liturgy over these last years, and it seems that it will take something like the recent changes in Roman Missal to make our pastors actually implement the proper wording and behavior of all who take part in the Mass. Blessings to all who contributed to this fine article and commentary.
Here is a response to the Weigel article: http://benedictgal-lexorandilexcredendi.blogspot.com/2012/01/perpetuating-bad-liturgical-habits.html
I have great respect for George Weigel and certainly agree with his observation. I might add that the guitar should have never been allowed in the Mass, and should now be banned for good. We would not have the problem with extraordinary ministers had the council never happened. Does anyone still wonder why the council did not try to bring the modern world into the Church? Allowing the sacred vessels and Eucharist to be profaned by unconsecrated hands has become a tragedy, and familiarity has caused, indifference, and often disrespect for the Real Presence. Until every Catholic again believes in the Real Presence, we will never see the renewal Pope John XXIII must have had in mind, and I will wonder why the council was necessary.
While Mr. Weigel (and, a good majority of the parishes and dioceses out there) concentrate on the four-hymn sandwich, the Church presents us with something entirely different: chant. Rather than perpetuate the use of hymns (the fourth option), why not just advocate for the default, the Propers of the Mass? This will, no doubt, remove any notion of using questionable music and, furthermore, actually fulfill the goal of singing the Mass instead of merely singing at Mass.
The GIRM does not regulate just how long the music should be either for the processional or the recessional. However, when it comes to the introductory rites (which, as a rule of thumb, should be brief), the GIRM does state that:
47. When the people are gathered, and as the Priest enters with the Deacon and ministers, the Entrance Chant begins. Its purpose is to open the celebration, foster the unity of those who have been gathered, introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical time or festivity, and accompany the procession of the Priest and ministers.
48. This chant is sung alternately by the choir and the people or similarly by a cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and Psalm of the Graduale Simplex for the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
If there is no singing at the Entrance, the antiphon given in the Missal is recited either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a reader; otherwise, it is recited by the Priest himself, who may even adapt it as an introductory explanation (cf. no. 31).
===
Furthermore, there is no requirement that we should even have a recessional. The Church states that we can either sing a hymn, have an instrumental or simply depart in silence. Recessionals need not go in into eternity. While I can understand Mr. Weigel’s point, I would much rather have silence after the time that the celebrant has already left the church.
As a practicing contemplative in the tradition of the Desert Mothers & Fathers all I see here is a case of form over substance. You all speak as if you are somehow impressing God. Maybe you should spend more time as Jesus said to do in you “inner room” after you read Matthew Chapter 23.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.