The following appeared in our bulletin this weekend,
“With the beginning of Lent, the Liturgy Committee would like to address and explain to everyone a few small adjustments we will be making in our liturgies. As I’m sure you have noticed, we have eliminated the position of Commentator over the past year or so. Beginning Ash Wednesday, we will also eliminate the announced “greetings,” which currently begin Mass. Subsequently, we will begin Mass simply by ringing the bell to signal a period of Sacred Silence, followed by a second ring, which will signal that start of the opening hymn. We now have two hymn board in the front of the church. The one of the left side indicates the hymns for the day. The one on the right side indicates the numbers for the parts of the Mass as found in the Music Issue. As a result, it is no longer necessary to break the flow of our liturgy to announce hymn numbers. The musical accompaniment will begin and the Cantor/Choir will start the assembly at the proper place. Our intention is to provide a more prayerful, integrated liturgy, which will flow as smoothly as possible.”
I applaud our parish in taking these steps. The liturgy, after all, is a great drama into which we are inserted. It always strikes me as a jarring interruption to the natural flow to pause and announce “instructions” of sorts. Imagine being at a play in which the stage director periodically yelled out instructions to the actors, or perhaps even to the audience, “Turn your heads now to the left side of the stage to observe the entrance of the lead actress.”
Particularly curious to me has been the announcement that has called for a “moment of sacred silence.” Most readers here will have heard Pope Benedict’s quote from Spirit of the Liturgy, in which he says that spontaneous applause in the liturgy is a sure sign that the essence of the liturgy has been lost. Something similar has always come to mind when hearing “sacred silence” specifically called for: whenever a parish feels the need to announce moments of sacred silence, it is a sure sign the the liturgy has not organically provided for it.
As for the position of Commentator, its place in the liturgical life of the Church has always eluded me. Virtually every “line” given to commentators tends to turn the congregation’s attention to people who are involved in the liturgy rather than to God. I am happy to see this position and its corresponding announcements vanish from the start of the liturgy.
There are a few other small and not-so-small things that I could recommend to aid the integrity and natural flow of the liturgy. The first is the moving of the “announcements.” First, it would great if parishes would limit these to only those absolutely essential. Yet even for those, placing them after communion seems to break up the continuity of the communion rite and risks diminishing the importance of the blessing and dismissal and its connection to the rest of the liturgy. If announcements must be done, having the priest mention them at the start of the homily (or end I suppose) seems to work much better. Of course, the objection will be that the homily is for teaching and preaching and not for announcements, but then again, the liturgy as a whole is for participating in the Holy Sacrifice of Christ rather than advertising parish events. In other words, if reading announcements at the homily interrupts what the homily is about, does it not do the same for the communion rite and the dismissal? If I had my way, I would eliminate them altogether, but given that most parishes still feel the need to inform the congregation of various happenings, there seems to be less interruption to the flow of Mass if such announcements happen during the homily. Think about it - the homily is the only part of Mass that is rightfully spoken in the vernacular. (I mean this here in the most general sense of the word, not simply as a distinction between Latin and English.) It is not a scripted moment, and therefore its language will be less ornate. It is also the part of the Mass that is very much for the people. The intention of the priest is to break open the Scriptures for the people and on the level of the people. This is why placing announcements here is less of a jarring break than would be otherwise. There is less of a linguistic discontinuity.
The second suggestion is to eliminate things like the Children’s Removal from the Liturgy. Of course, the interruption to the flow of the liturgy is not the only issue involved here, and I don’t intend to repeat what I have said elsewhere. Yet the fact is that it provides two quite obvious interruptions. The first is the dismissal of the children itself. Because the action is not foreseen by the liturgical rubrics, it should come as no surprise that the dismissal and accompanying blessing is often ad libbed and inserted right into the middle of the opening rite. Yet there is a second interruption when the children return, often unregulated, to the church. Most parishes try to time this during the Offertory so that it is less obvious, but more than once I have seen the group returning during the Sanctus, or worse, during the consecration itself.
Finally, and I recognize that this is a stretch in most parishes, I would recommend replacing the “Opening Hymn,” which under the new translation of the GIRM seems to have no mention in the rubrics, with the Proper chant, called the Introit, be it in Latin or in English. The structure of a chant is such that it leads nicely into the Sign of the Cross and the Penitential Rite. Chants, by their very nature, are unmetered and give the listener the experience of resting in eternal realities (which, of course, is precisely what the Mass entails). A hymn, by contrast, is a metered set of “beats” marching to a conclusion. In this way, hymns are very “temporal,” which is the opposite of “eternal.” While such a temporal march could possibly play a role in the recessional, it seems very out of place in the processional. What is the hymn “marching towards” in the processional? In fact, at its “end” we find not an end, but the beginning of the sacred action. The often upbeat and “peppy” hymn concludes in the solemn profession of our sins. The discontinuity is apparent, and whether individuals know it or not, I think this might be why many priests insert a greeting of sorts after the Sign of the Cross. It just doesn’t seem “natural” to go from a metered structure into the Penitential rite.
All of my suggestions aside, I can’t help but re-offer compliments to my parish for implementing the changes in its “Liturgical Adjustments.” These are small steps, but important ones nonetheless. Continuity in the Sacred Action is critical for actual participation of the faithful. Of course I can’t help but thinking that the new language in the Mass has somehow prompted more than one parish to look again at the liturgy and its presentation. A more formal language will, over time, cause us to treat the liturgy with the dignity it deserves. Kudos to our Liturgy Committee for beginning this process.
Ugggh!
ReplyDeleteThat someone would actually consider the Liturgy of the Word so unimportant as to include the morning announcements in it casts a terrible reflection on the reverence being held for the Word of God. Sorry ... this is absolutely wrong ... it should not even be entertained let alone put forward as a solution.
No announcements ... that's better ... a compromise ... put them 10 minutes before the service starts ... in the Liturgy of the Word ... unclean, unclean!
That a parish would consider it children (and no doubt its families) as a hindrance to worship ... it is a good thing Jesus didn't. I remember one priest who suggested that it was the responsibility of parents for one to come to one Mass and the other to another Mass so that the children would not disturb the silence. The result ... neither came at all ... they went where they were welcomed and where their entire family was validated in the service. Have you ever seen a church totally minus one or two generations?
This is simply wrong. Sorry ... simply wrong.
Anonymous (a name would be nice),
ReplyDeleteWith due respect, I clearly stated my preference for no announcements. Further, although the form of the rite doesn't matter in this discussion, I should note that both extraordinary forms I have been to have placed announcements (done by the priest) just before the homily. It worked rather well. Placing them ten minutes before the service starts is not a compromise - it is virtually identical to not having them. Again, I will reiterate my original point - that I would prefer not having them. But sometimes in order to get from the present to the ideal involves going through some intermediate steps. This took me a while to realize, but there is prudence needed with how to proceed through some of these issues. Take the example of sacred music. We can insist on jumping right to the "ideal", i.e. Gregorian propers, but that will never fly in most parishes. It is helpful to think through how to gradually get a parish to that point rather than merely lamenting the state we are in an how far from the ideal we are.
From one liturgy lover to another (I presume), I would suggest being more constructive than "wrong ... simply wrong."
I am afraid I must agree with Anonymous on this one ... all three of us agree that announcements are best if they are not in the liturgy at all, or kept to the barest minimum on those occasions when they are absolutely necessary ... for example, the death of a parishioner.
ReplyDeleteFrom Verbum Domini: " In the words of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, “ sacred Scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. From it are taken the readings, which are explained in the homily and the psalms that are sung. From Scripture the petitions, prayers and liturgical hymns receive their inspiration and substance. From Scripture the liturgical actions and signs draw their meaning ”. Even more, it must be said that Christ himself “ is present in his word, since it is he who speaks when Scripture is read in Church ”. Indeed, “ the liturgical celebration becomes the continuing, complete and effective presentation of God’s word. The word of God, constantly proclaimed in the liturgy, is always a living and effective word through the power of the Holy Spirit. It expresses the Father’s love that never fails in its effectiveness towards us ”"
In any form extraordinary or novus, I cannot reconcile the weekly announcements with the "continuing, complete and effective presentation of God's word."
At best, they should be relegated to exactly where they are ... if present at all.
Very interesting to me as I am now learning about proper liturgy. Can you explain the difference between the gradual and the responsorial psalms? I understand the gradual is more ancient? Thanks so much.
DeleteThe gradual is the official psalm for sung Masses located in the Graduale Romanum. The Responsorial Psalm, which the GIRM prefers (though tradition does not) is located in the Lectionary. It too is meant to be sung, though the Ordo Cantus Missae (Order for Sung Masses) lists the gradual as normative for sung Masses.
ReplyDeleteThe gradual was originally responsorial, and was comprised of almost an entire psalm. As the music became more ornate, for time's sake, verses were dropped until usually only a respond and a single verse remained. Eventually, the respond stopped being repeated after the verse (almost universally, though some places still kept the ancient custom). What was left was a respond and verse sung straight through, leading to the Alleluia or Tract.
Thanks so much for the thorough reply.
DeleteKeep the children in the Liturgy, i.e., no separate "children's liturgy". The Mass is otherwise battered by the interruptions.The parents, being the first educators of their children, should be supported in the religious upbringing of their children. A take-home children's page might be useful along with a catechetical note in the bulletin and orthodox formation in the homily should suffice. Certainly, parishes can sponsor a day of religious instruction for parents raising children. Children's liturgies of the Word tend to alienate children from their spiritual home - the Mass.
ReplyDeleteThe plethora of cumbersome and often questionable greetings and welcomes prior to Mass must go. The greeting by the priest (say the black!) suffices. And, while-we're-at-it: no more annoying interruptions, i.e., announcements of the psalm, offertory and communion chants during Mass. The notion that the person in the pew is somehow deprived of their right to or responsibility for "active participation" (participatio actuosa) because they won't be singing those chants is simply a misunderstanding of participatio actuosa found in the Vatican II documents. And besides, if someone can't learn the response to the psalm within one repetition, provided the cantor or precentor chants the psalm in a clear manner, then perhaps that same person may simply listen and join their heart and mind to the text being announced. That interior participation is, after all, what participatio actuosa is really about.