In The Reception of Holy Communion at Mass, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops say the following about the song during the Communion procession:
This action by Christ’s body, the Church assembled for the Eucharist, is manifested and supported by the Communion Chant, a hymn in praise of Christ sung by the united voices of those who believe in him and share his life. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal takes this hymn very seriously, mandating that it should begin at the Communion of the priest and extend until the last person has received Communion.
For some, however, the singing of this hymn is perceived as an intrusion on their own prayer, their private thanksgiving after Communion. In fact, however, this hymn is prayer, the corporate thanksgiving prayer of the members of Christ’s Body, united with one another. Over and over again the prayers of the liturgy and the norms of the General Instruction emphasize this fundamental concept of the unity of the baptized, stressing that when we come together to participate in the Eucharistic celebration we come, not as individuals, but as united members of Christ’s Body.
How would one promote most constructively the Eucharistic spirituality and liturgical theology found in this document, and in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal which it cites? How would one most effectively deal with the sensitive issue of a sometimes deeply-rooted piety which is not informed by this communal understanding? What positive steps would help promote congregational singing during the Communion procession so that it is perceived as prayerful, joyful, and worshipful?
Comments
46 responses to “Non Solum: The Spirituality of Singing During Communion”
Step 1: Make sure the communion hymn has a singable *refrain* so that everyone can join in singing, whether they are in the communion procession or in the pews.
This sounds so basic but it goes a long way toward encouraging the congregation to sing together during communion. Far too often I’ve been to parishes where the choir sings *at* the congregation or they use through-composed metrical hymns and no one knows the text beyond the first verse.
@Kevin Ryan:
+1
Contrary to some comments, my experience is that the people who will sing at all are happy to sing if they know the hymn. I have had very good response with the simple (One Bread, One Body) and even the fairly complicated that is well known (Gift of Finest Wheat and even I Am the Bread of Life).
Too many times, though, the musicians are choosing performance pieces and that is distracting.
This post is timely as I have recently received an email on this very topic from someone at my new parish. Prior to a few months ago, there was never any singing during Communion….just instrumental music, with the exception of the “choir mass” when the choir would sing a choral piece. The sender of the email was requesting that we cease singing as it is a great distraction to her. I replied to her and cited the Bishops statement above. I suggested that she join in the sung prayer. I have yet to hear back from her. But, I feel I responded in a professional manner. Definitely a delicate balance between personal piety & communal prayer. And yes, I never choose strophic hymns for Communion. Only pieces with refrains.
First of all, I think they make a mistake in calling it a hymn. No document says that it needs to be a hymn. This idea sounds better in theory rather than in practice. I have never heard an entire congregation united in singing a communion song – they simply don’t sing while they are in procession, even if it is a short refrain (which at least gets SOME of them singing in procession).
I would also suggest that any congregational communion song be simple and beautiful, so that it can be respectful and can bind the personal prayers into one common prayer.
There is also nothing wrong with having the choir sing the entire communion proper with psalm verses, which is permitted in the GIRM. The congregation can still be united in prayer mentally, and often it’s easier to engage mentally when there is no physical requirement.
There’s an absurd dichotomy presented in the document cited — as if the period of communion cannot be both a time of quiet meditation and a time of singing. The General Instruction (which has quite a bit more weight than this thing) says:
“45. Sacred silence also, as part of the celebration, is to be observed at the designated times. Its nature, however, depends on the moment when it occurs in the different parts of the celebration. For in the Penitential Act and again after the invitation to pray, individuals recollect themselves; whereas after a reading or after the Homily, all meditate briefly on what they have heard; then after Communion, they praise God in their hearts and pray to him.”
“88. When the distribution of Communion is over, if appropriate, the Priest and faithful pray quietly for some time. If desired, a Psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the whole congregation.”
Now, n. 86 does say that “While the Priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion Chant is begun, its purpose being to express the spiritual union of the communicants by means of the unity of their voices.” However, n. 87 specifies as options 1 & 2 the antiphons from the Graduale Romanum and the Graduale Simplex, both of which are in Latin and are not likely to be sung by everyone, but rather, by the choir or schola on behalf of everyone. If this is not true, then nn. 86 and 87 are in direct contradiction of each other.
Proof of my interpretation is found in n. 87 itself, which states: “This [antiphon or chant] is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or a cantor with the people.” THE CHOIR ALONE OR BY THE CHOIR AND THE PEOPLE.
@Peter Kwasniewski:
Peter, your post is off-topic. The question posed is how to promote the spirituality of the document I cited. You’re not doing that, you’re fighting another one of your agendas by disagreeing with the document cited. And you’re selectively quoting the GIRM, ignoring other passages promoting congregational singing during Communion.
I ask other commenters not to engage Peter’s post. I want this conversation to stay on-topic.
awr
@Anthony Ruff, OSB:
Quite
The most important step is to go to every 2nd grade catechist in the country and teach them. Over and over I have heard children being prepared for First Communion with the instruction that they immediately return to the pew for quiet prayer. If you’ve done that since you’re seven, and your parents have done since they were seven, you’re not going to change no matter what some liturgist or priest tells you.
A specific suggestion: anything that is derived from the Graduale Simplex, with simple congregational refrains and verses sung by the cantor or choir. I’ve begun using Fr. Columba Kelly’s settings with the following scheme: choral proper Missal antiphon – congregational refrain in alternation with cantor psalm verses – proper antiphon at the end. It works well. The antiphons in By Flowing Waters are effective as well. In a multilingual assembly, one could use the Graduale Simplex Latin antiphons themselves. There are also the nicely written antiphons in the Lumen Christi Missal. If you are looking for something metrical, Andrew Motyka’s are well done, available on his website.
Father, I won’t echo Peter’s accurate contentions. I will speak only from practice. First of all, the bishop’s conventional determination of unity through song and posture is best characterized as trying to intellectually convince everyone that there, indeed, is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It they would be aware shepherds, they’d first acknowledge that we, all like sheep, have a tendency to go astray until we’re guided towards the place at which we’ll be fed. Some of us will bleat, whether from hunger or from remembered anticipation of being fed, some of us will just follow the herd because we suppose it’s the right way and we’re not being led to a cliff of destruction, and others of us will just queue up because that’s what everyone else is doing.
That may seem a little harsh or dismissive, but I didn’t intend it so.
The question called is whether there is a spiritual benefit granted from actually joining in whatever’s being sung at HC. Don’t put the cart, whether the procession, kneeling/standing, tongue/hand or one or both species in front of the HORSE. It’s not required. Singing and standing universally is either a Valhalla-like fulfillment of a shared identity, or the propagandized or tyrannical asserting of a political will that “all become one.” And that’s why we are at once both sheep and persons. It can’t be legislated, it can’t be enforced, it can’t be coerced or seduced into being. What it can be, which it has been since 1903 and even earlier centuries, is “invited.” And like the virgins with their lamps and some with oil, we’re all invited, but not all prepared to enter.
I have found at both of the parishes that I have worked in that singing psalms for communion works well (so also do some of the common refrain communion hymns listed above). Sometimes I use a psalm setting from the propers for the day or a psalm that might generally speak a bit to communion: 34, 63, 42, etc. In the parish I am newest to there was a bit of confusion about the practice, but after some education the response has been quite positive. I suspect that this works well because of the simple refrain as well.
Although WHAT the assembly is asked to sing is integral to the “quantity” of the singing, I think that the WHEN is as important. “Sing to the Lord” states, “While the priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion chant [or song] is begun….The singing begins immediately and continues ‘ for as long as the Sacrament is being administered to the faithful.’ ”
This point has been an unfortunate source of conflict between the pastor and me, but I am permitted to begin the communion song when the chalice is placed back on the altar after the presider receives.
In my parish, anyway, some of my heartiest singers sit in the first 8 or 10 pews. We get a great start to the hymn while the Eucharistic Ministers are receiving communion. By the time distribution to the assembly begins, we have some positive singing momentum. The volume dies down a bit in the middle, but picks back up as more people return to their pews, make their personal prayer, and resume singing. Then, when communion to the assembly has concluded, the organist and cantor or choir receive. This works for us (and I think it’s what we’re supposed to be doing!).
However, in many area parishes, the musicians don’t start the communion hymn until all the Eucharistic Ministers, servers, and the choir itself have received. The choir is actual receiving at the same time as the assembly, so the communion hymn doesn’t even start until more than half the people have received. The momentum of silence has taken hold, and the singing is anemic at best.
Maybe this is a Lutheran thing, but I grew up in a parish where singing during the distribution was the norm. The parish practice was not simply singing, but singing in harmony. As the distribution proceeded, the organist would reach the end of a middle stanza of a hymn, play the first chord of the next stanza, and then would leave the organ bench to join the procession to the altar. The assembly would continue singing, and when the organist had communed and returned to the organ bench, she would gently insert the organ back into the singing of the community — and observers would note that the community had remained on key.
I share my story is to illustrate the sense of “deeply-rooted piety,” as a way of saying that the spirituality of singing during communion is not impossible. It is also not a specifically Lutheran thing, though Lutherans may be better at it (or more familiar with it) than others.
Central to this singing is (a) selecting music that is easily sung, not simply by the assembly but by a portion of the assembly, since part of them are receiving the Eucharist; and (b) selecting music that the assembly *wants* to sing. It can’t be “we’re supposed to sing, so I suppose we ought to lift our voices,” but more of a “Oh! We know this music!” kind of thing. It requires knowledge not simply of music but of the parish.
As Kevin noted @ #1, music with a good refrain is a good way to encourage singing. Similarly, a communion text set to a very familiar tune accomplishes the same thing (see Delores Dufner’s “What Feast of Love Is Offered Here” — set to Greensleeves — as another example).
In my experience, psalms work best. Starting during the presider’s communion.
That said, the chance that you will change the practice that congregants prefer is very low, and the very last thing you should do is imagine it’s a battle that needs to be waged. The moment you think of it in antagonistic terms – people to be persuaded is still assuming you are right and they are not – then you’ve already contradicted the sign of Communion in your own attitude.
Don’t.
A singing assembly breathes together, which at least in my mind is a potent reminder that in what we have received, we are one Body. Even those who have not received are breathing with the Body, which seems to me to be a particularly powerful effect.
That said — the question was how to help develop and sustain a spirituality which recognizes the unity of the assembly at the point of our reception of the Body and Blood of Christ.
There is the utterly obvious – stick to simple and familiar hymns, or choose refrain/verse arrangements where the verses are short, done by cantor or choir, and the assembly can join the verses as they are able, but easily “carry” the refrain with them into the communion procession. If the verses are too long, it can obscure the “one voice, one breath” symbolism.
Perhaps not so obvious, consider a significant silence at the end of the procession. Now that we’re all breathing as one, sit as a community in silence.
My sense is that this respects the “I want my time to pray quietly.” but does so in such a way that doesn’t set it up as a tension with the communion hymn.
So what do other denominations do? My own experience in various protestant denominations is instrumental music or choir singing while the congregation receives, and then a post-communion hymn with everyone singing together then. I never heard anyone complain about that.
+1 to Jonathan Ziegler.
Speaking from my own experience, the most personally gratifying circumstance is an instrumental piece during the distribution of Communion…one that is wordless and neither imposes upon me in that moment the piety of someone else nor that asks for a dichotomy of my concentration — singing while in the act of moving and of partaking.
Those two realities are in themselves a communal action of the assembly: Taking and eating and taking and drinking.
Bifurcating the assembly’s focus by being asked to simultaneously sing whilst in the act of personally receiving the Eucharist together with all the movements to and fro that are needed to accomplish that is more than just personally discordant…it is, in my respectful opinion, asking too much.
Then, however, once the action of receiving is over, a post communion hymn, that is itself a communal action and a collective response to the action, is a superior situation.
In other words, I think there is a very practical reason for a shortfall of participation: the individuals receiving are sufficiently occupied.
Is not the Body of Christ also notional? Put another way, isn’t being part of a congregation for Mass, and especially receiving communion, qualify as being the Body of Christ assembled? I doubt that singing during the communion is necessarily a sign of the Body of Christ. It could be, but silence does not necessarily obviate the presence of the Body of Christ.
I know I’m not supposed to agree with Peter, but I do on some level. (This might get me booted, but it’s worth the risk). If I read Peter correctly, he contends that the gradual chant for the communion verse (or, I would add, perhaps a vernacular adaptation) is part of the normative way to celebrate Mass even on ferial days.
Sometimes though, the normative is the ideal and not always feasible. I do not agree with the bishops’ notion that singing constitutes a primary or even necessary sign of the Body of Christ simply because Mass can be spoken. This is not the ideal means of celebration, but it is permitted. If the bishops’ assertion that the Body of Christ is contained in the act of singing were the case, then many ferial Masses would be devoid of the Body of Christ. This is true merely because that the priest and congregation recites (or should recite) the communion verse from the Missal.
When I’m working with a congregation, I often ask them what the difference is between a procession and a queue (or, in the US, a line). Then I explain that when you’re in a queue, you’re moving forward to get something — it could be unemployment benefit, or a ticket for the football game, or Holy Communion. What makes it a procession is that you sing, at least some of the time (e.g. a refrain).
I might then ask them how many processions there are during the Mass (Entrance, Gospel, Gifts, Communion, Exit Procession), followed by Which is the most important procession for us? The Communion Procession. Why? Because it’s the only one that we can all take part in. (All the others have a limited number of people who process in order to get from A to B or who process on our behalf, as in the Procession of the Gifts.)
Then I might mention GIRM 86, which says that the purpose of the Communion Song is “to express the spiritual union of the communicants by means of the unity of their voices” — i.e. everyone sings.
But the crunch factor is, having gone through some, most, or all of this, telling them that it’s OK to sing when you’re coming up to receive, and when you’re on your way back from receiving, and while you’re in your place, waiting to come up, and when you’re back in your place after receiving; and that all of this is a way of supporting the sung prayer of the entire community. I find that this is what makes the difference. Giving people permission to sing during the Communion procession invariably results in a significant increase in the number of those joining in.
And yes, I agree that psalms and songs with refrains are essential. However, I also notice some assemblies who not only join in the refrain but who also sing the verses — from memory! — while they are processing. Glorious!
For me, then, choral singing or instrumental music during Communion is mere background music, liturgical wallpaper if you like, compared with the singing of the assembly, integrated into the action which is what Communion [com-union] is about. People will ask me “Oh, what about that lovely Ave, verum motet we’ve been rehearsing? When are we going to get to sing that, then?” I tell them “During the procession and preparation/presentation of the gifts”, accompanying that scene-change between the two “Acts” of Word and Eucharist. That is the place for background music.
@Paul Inwood:
Paul, the choral vs. congregational thing in the tension between GIRM 86 and 87 has been rehashed here many times, and it’s fruitless to go there again. But could you please refrain from using the term “background music”? You know it’s not; choral music at any time during the Mass should engage everybody and is in fact integrated into the action.
@Doug O’Neill:
But could you please refrain from using the term “background music”? You know it’s not; choral music at any time during the Mass should engage everybody and is in fact integrated into the action.
Doug,
You’ve named the problem. During the distribution of the Communion, choral music is precisely background music because it is not an integral part of the liturgical action, i.e. the communal procession. Therefore people can tune it out. They risk drifting off into individual devotional reveries instead of realizing that the essence of the Communion procession is that it is a communal action. Purely choral music at this point in the rite encourages that, as well as depriving the people of their voice.
@Paul Inwood:
My experience is that people can just as easily, and sometimes more easily, tune out mentally when they are physically participating (how many times have all of us sung a hymn and had no clue what we just sang about?) But Anthony’s original post had to do with ways to encourage what that document says through congregational singing, which I have absolutely no objection to, so I’ll leave it at that.
However, Jordan raises a good point. If singing from the entire body is necessary to express congregational unity, then do we say that those choosing not to sing are not not unified with everybody, or worse, not becoming part of the Body of Christ? It’s not all up to the selection of music or properly educating people – there also has to be a good-faith effort on the part of those participating. What if we choose a well-known song, do all we can to let them know that they should be singing, and then some STILL choose not to participate? I would hate to think they are lost causes.
It’s one thing to say, as the GIRM does, that the “purpose” is to express unity… it’s another, as this says, that the Communion song is to be “sung by the united voices of those who believe in him and share his life.” Logically, then, anybody who is not singing and thus not united are not believers and do not share his life?
@Doug O’Neill:
And getting back on topic again, regarding your concern: no one is saying that the entire assembly has to sing every blessed thing. That is precisely why psalms with antiphons and songs with refrains are the preferred form of singing at Communion — so that the assembly may easily be part of that ideal expressed by GIRM 86 when it refers to unity of voices. Unity of voices doesn’t mean everyone singing everything all the time. It can equally well be expressed by songs which have music for cantor(s), and choir, and people at different times — three different elements combining to make a wonderful and united whole. I think that when this sort of thing happens, and when it works, people do actually perceive that they are an integral part of something larger than themselves, without the need to be constantly singing, just as they do when taking part in a litany or some other multispatial form.
Appropriate hymn – sung well enhances solemnity, devotion and colloquy.
This past summer saw me back in the UK and Ireland on homeleave. Over the weeks I attendend Mass on Sundays in six different locations, including two Cathedral parishes. I only encountered one One of the best applications of GIRM/rubrics on music at communion time was at a parish in Dublin, a parish known for the quality of its music. Sadly the good impression received at the first Mass I attended there was ruined on the second occassion. Nothing to do with those in music ministry, rather the celebrant, a priest who resides in the parish, who seemed to believe that the GIRM/rubrics were a useful point of reference, but no more. The cantors there, and at Westminster Cathedral, were fully aware of their roles and led the congregation in a way that was authoritative, but unobstrusive. The cantor at the other Cathedral parish was all over the place, either too tentative or too forceful. That the sound system wasn’t really serving the role one would expect didn’t help either.
Our Episcopal parish (Anglo-Catholic) has the administration of Holy Communion begin with the bell rung after the response “But speak the word only, and my soul shall be healed.” Immediately the choir begins singing the Agnus Dei as the communion-rail gates are closed and the people start coming forward. Following the Agnus Dei, the choir sings the Communion motet or anthem, then the schola chants the proper Communion antiphon (from the Graduale Romanum). Once the last communicant has received, the Communion hymn is begun as the ablutions start.
@Doug O’Neill:
I have zero problem not singing songs I can’t stand, and there is no obligation to do so. And I say that as someone who spent years singing lots of liturgical music that was not my preference,
If you program Let There Be Peace On Earth or Anthem or Mother Rat as a recessional, I am outta there at the dismissal without compunction. If it’s at another point of the Mass, I go to my special place.
@Karl Liam Saur:
I’ve never even heard of Mother Rat, and I don’t think I want to. And I agree with the recessional – after all, if the Mass is over, the Mass is over. Leave if you want to.
As far as singing obligation goes… I don’t think that’s really discussed anywhere, is it? I raise this, because a lot of weight is put on the planning to choose songs that people will engage in, but what if they don’t want to engage in it? Is that really the fault of the people planning? If one person decides not to sing, is it then a failure to unite the entire congregation, as language like this indicates?
@Doug O’Neill:
Mother Rat is the puckish nickname for the old Irish-American chestnut “Mother, at thy feet is kneeling”: http://www.godsongs.net/2014/02/mother-at-thy-feet-is-kneeling.html
Important clarification: GIRM 86 is (IMO) somewhat mistranslated in the U.S. edition.
The Latin says “unitatem vocum”: “unity of voices”. There is no “sui” (“suis”?) that would require the possessive that qualifies the statement as referring to particular voices—which, in this case, would be those of the communicants. But, the Latin original doesn’t specify whose voices are in unity.
This is a relevant point, IMO, because it helps to harmonize this passage of GIRM with the following section, which specifically allows the chant to be sung by the choir alone. The U.S. edition seems to contradict itself; the Latin original is not so problematic, though even without the possessive there still seem to be salient vestiges of committee and compromise in evidence.
(Apologies in advance for what may be seen as veering off-topic, but:)
IMO this is a sacred cow. GIRM explicitly prioritizes, in continuity with previous XXc legislation on the topic, the singing of those parts that concern the priest with congregation, either in alternation or together: so, greeting/response, preface, Gloria, Creed (yes!), Our Father, etc. There are certainly practical reasons for this, and I’ve read theological justifications for it, too. (Ratzinger?) The communion chant is not part of this category.
(Back on-topic …)
Do we know who authored “The Reception Of Holy Communion At Mass”? It doesn’t indicate whether it’s from the full body of bishops, the liturgy committee, etc.
@Felipe Gasper:
I disagree with your point about Latin translation. Possessives are notoriously different from one language to another and can’t always be translated literally. English students of Spanish and Italian must learn that an idiomatic “the mother/father” would sometimes be “my mother/father” in English because that meaning is clearly meant in the original.
Besides, it is the English translation of the GIRM with the US adaptations that is the text officially approved (by the Holy See) for the U.S.
It’s not at all surprising to me that there are contradictions and tensions and compromises in the official documents. It couldn’t be otherwise, given all the aims of liturgical renewal and the new desiderata that don’t always follow harmoniously from past tradition. This is why so many efforts to force ‘continuity’ are so problematic.
awr
@Anthony Ruff, OSB:
Thank you for your response, Fr.
There are, of course, lots of trade-offs involved in translation; however, it’s worth asking why a particular passage would be phrased one way or another in the source to accommodate this or that shade of meaning. The authors of the Latin *could* have included the possessive, but they didn’t. Maybe that was a conscious decision, reflective of actual intent (i.e., the deliberate avoidance of precisely the meaning that U.S. GIRM conveys), or maybe they left out the possessive for another reason, or no particular reason.
Had that possessive been there in the Latin, however, it would have been incorrect to translate that passage merely as “unity of voices”; the translator would have needed the possessive in English to convey the Latin’s meaning more accurately. If indeed it was the intent to convey “communicants all singing” in #86, as U.S. GIRM indicates, then the authors of the Latin could have phrased this sentence more clearly. As the phrase stands, it is at least *more* plausible to interpret that phrase as not envisioning singing from all communicants than it would be if the Latin included the possessive.
@Felipe Gasper:
Felipe, you have ignored Fr Anthony’s point and made it clear that you do not understand how languages and idioms actually work. It’s a similar mentality to the one that produced Liturgiam Authenticam, whose authors could not understand that formal equivalence in translation does not produce idiomatic language that anyone actually speaks.
There are TWO important stumbling blocks here that have been conflated . Singing in in the pew after receiving runs afoul of the personal meditation issue, well discussed. But that is totally separate from singing in procession. I rather suspect some has to do with lacking the security blanket of holding the text in your hand. Maybe the secret is indeed to mimic the psalm approach and simply sing a refrain that the assembly is expected to pick up and reply to by ear. That way there is no txt to hold.
This strikes me as being one of those issues which earns liturgists their unfavorable comparison to terrorists. Yes, the GIRM declares the expression of unity to be a goal of the Communion chant, but considering that this may be expressed, as noted from n. 86, by the choir alone, it seems this can be interpreted in much the same way as posture. The CDW told us the Church wants to “to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity” but “to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.”
The key to realizing the communitarian vision of this document lies, in my mind, in cultivating a sense of communal *prayer* – the thing the song is supposed to be expressing – without worrying over much about every last soul offering that prayer through the same *physicality*. The architects of the OF suppressed much of the traditional (E&W) multiformity of worship. The unity of the body is indeed expressed through shared action, but the NT portrays our shared action as the result of diverse contributions. A hand is not a mouth is not an eye, and demanding ocular input from an extremity would be ludicrous. Not all of us are given the same spiritual temperament; not all are called to the same state or grade within the Church. When we come together we each contribute our own part according to our distinct role, so we can share in the same prayer by doing different things simultaneously. It is perfectly acceptable for priest to say one thing while the choir is more slowly singing something else, and the man in the pew follows one, the other, or neither, moving at his own pace – that doesn’t mean we’ve fragmented into distinct acts, just that we’re building up the same act in our own different ways. Spiritual union can be deepened through physical unity – we are embodied creatures, after all – but for some this union may be effected more readily or deeply by being free to unite their souls to the common action without having to produce the right sounds on cue.
@Aaron Sanders:
It is perfectly acceptable for priest to say one thing while the choir is more slowly singing something else, and the man in the pew follows one, the other, or neither, moving at his own pace
At the risk of going off-topic, that was the case before the postconciliar reforms, but it certainly isn’t the case now. The scenario where the priest got on with the Canon of the Mass while the choir performed the Sanctus was perceived to be a mediaeval aberration and so was stopped by the 1969 Ordo Missae, as were other instances where the priest would say the text and then go and sit down while the choir sang a lengthy setting. The problem was that the idea had grown up that if the priest had not pronounced all the words himself then validity was in question.
@Paul Inwood:
While the Offertory Chant is being sung the priest prays the berakah in a low voice. The Offertory Chant may be sung in various combinations of choir and people, but choir alone remains an option. One would think that since they completely reworked the Offertory the reformers would have been more consistent with their rationalizing tendencies (they really did get rid of most/all? the rest of these opportunities for complementary participation), but the fact remains that through intent or sloppiness they didn’t.
The divine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom calls for the priest to pray in a low voice while the people are singing the Cherubic Hymn. I suspect that if we wanted to dig around more we could find more Eastern examples. This mode of participation, no matter when it first nosed its way into the liturgy, is, I contend, one with which the universal Church remains comfortable.
So to the point of how one encourages the spirituality and theology of this document I would reiterate that it would be very poor form to pressure people towards “unity only through uniformity”. The documents don’t bear that out, and consequently its partisan winds up browbeating people into conforming to his narrow interpretation of what the Church has left broad. If crafting a strategy for myself I would focus on the two prongs of 1) easily sung antiphons/refrains and 2) liturgical catechesis reminding the congregation that active participation is perfected through outward expression – and in corporate prayer good order demands that individuals’ outward expressions be, if not identical, at least harmonized. Beyond that I would leave each person to enjoy the freedom of a Christian to offer his prayer as best he is able.
Another good discussion topic. When I introduce a new communion hymn/song (usually a refrain/verse arrangement) to the parish, I program it for at least four weekends in a row. The occasions I’ve done so my ears have been rewarded with the sound of the assembly singing – not gloriously robust, but engaged nevertheless. It’s difficult for us musicians to comprehend how hard it is for non-musicians to learn music comfortably so that they feel they can participate.
The issue surrounding who authored this is paramount. Having worked at the NCCB in the 90’s, and knowing the process in which many things are authored there, I suspect there was no review of this by ANY Bishop whatsoever.
The Conference usually indicates who authored an official statement, if it came from the Administrative Committee, a Secretariat’s Bishop, etc. In this case, there is no indication whatsoever.
In fact, I suspect it may have been primarilly authored by the Administrative Aide to the Secretariat’s ED. But, let’s say it is the ED himself.
What authority does he have? Not much, if any.
@Todd Orbitz:
I think you can be sure that at least the bishops of BCDW would have seen this before it was posted on the website.
@Todd Orbitz:
I’m not that concerned about the “official authority” of the statement. It is childish to nitpick about legalities, with the subtext that “we don’t have to do this because Daddy didn’t really say so.”
Let’s discuss the statement on its own merits. it is representative of what has been said by any number of respected authorities – various bishops’ conferences throughout the world, theologians, other official documents, and so forth. I’m not going to bother to track down 10 or 12 ‘official’ statements in various languages to argue against the “Daddy says” folks.
Let’s get back on track: how does one promote singing during Communion? That’s the question of the original post.
awr
I think most here would agree that congregational singing during communion is an objectively good thing. There is a natural defensiveness though, when some of us perceive or think we perceive an agenda against the choir ever singing alone at communion (an option explicitly allowed in current legislation, whatever various peoples’ opinions may be). Personally, I see no need to approach this question the same way at every single Mass. At my cathedral we have several different approaches each Sunday. Our standard approach is a simple, metrical communion antiphon meant for the congregation (my compositions, text taken from the Graduale or Roman Missal; whichever seems to offer a better text for the purposes of simplicity and singability). The verses are cantor or choir, as the case may be. However, at my men’s schola Mass the schola typically chants the Graduale communion with verses through much of the procession, followed by an organ bridge while schola receives, and a congregational hymn to finish communion and purification of vessels.
Interestingly, I often hear how much people enjoy processing while the schola chants. Good for my humility, I suppose, but I do not hear nearly as many comments about the experience of singing my antiphons while processing. Since we almost always have a hymn of thanksgiving regardless of how the antiphon is handled, I think the issue of “losing the communion hymn” is something of a moot point.
I disagree with Paul Inwood’s point that all participants singing is what makes a procession a procession – I can think of many examples to the contrary, from ritual and civic life. Also, singing an integral text is never “wallpaper” – sorry, Paul. I think our best bet is to use processional music that legitimately CAN be sung by laypeople (antiphons really seem the obvious answer here), and not worry too much about “dealing with” individual spirituality if it doesn’t fit our textbook ideal.
Like Michelle (#14) I suspect this would be less a problem if people were permitted a little silence for private prayer after Communion, too — which the GIRM does allow. (Too often churches are flooded with chatter the moment the recessional ends, destroying any real possibility of private prayer then.) Presiders could both protect space for this silence and set an example.
Rod (#16) raises concerns that remind me of the discussion about how we really can’t multitask, even if we think we do. Dare we ask liturgists to look at the research here? (Those in the Gospel and Offertory processions don’t usually try to sing, and at least on special occasions, those in or watching entrance and exit processions are often not focused on the text they are supposed to be singing from.)
Simple and easily memorized seem key here.
I would agree with Terry (#7) and Aaron (#40) about catechesis, to a point. Education on the learned insights about communal prayer and singing might make some difference, but I’m not sure theologians, liturgists, and bishops can really expect to break people of the instinctive sense that the time right after receiving Christ in the Eucharist is privileged, a time of special closeness not to be wasted on distractions. Paul’s idea of ‘giving permission to sing’ (#18) is intriguing in this light; I wonder if people don’t usually feel more that they are being ordered to sing? But if what one is ordered to sing seems, in the context of that moment, a distraction rather than prayer?
Does anyone borrow Communion hymns from other Rites within the church? Or set to music some of the pre-Communion prayer texts which the priest says silently?
The comments and philosophies here surprise me. I’ve been in 6 rather different parishes, and the norm has always been solid singing at Communion. At times, the Communion song has been sung with almost the same gusto as the Gathering song. For the Bread of Life discourse weekends, I used: I Myself am the Bread of Life – Cooney, We Come to your Feast – Joncas, Blest are They – Haas, I Received the Living God, and Eat this bread. In all cases, the songs were sung very well, including the verses, though obviously the refrain would be somewhat better.
I dare say if your congregation “refuses” to sing during Communion, you’re doing something wrong.
Regardless of whether or not one uses the official propers, I think most would agree that the idea of a kind of pseudo-proper is good – that is, something that is integrally linked with the readings on which people can reflect as they receive. Songs like “I am the bread of life,” “Gift of finest wheat,” etc. are all well and good, and because they are well-known and fairly easy to sing, they work well. The problem with this is that if you look to the official propers as a model, often they are not about the Eucharist itself. So if you are looking to find something that will echo the readings, you are going to find yourself with a broader repertoire than the common Eucharistic songs. This is a tension with all the propers spots of the Mass – logically, if you want to get people involved and sing heartily, in a tradition that does not have a culture of strong congregational singing, you are going to want to repeat songs a lot, so that they are a comfortable part of the repertoire. Yet this notion goes against the very idea of the propers, which are specific texts for the day (albeit less so in Ordinary Time – it is often possible to find an Offertory Hymn, for instance, that is more closely tied to the themes than is the official Offertory). In my mind, the best way to resolve this conflict is the use of brief easily learned antiphons. That’s why I love Fr. Columba’s antiphons. The choir can take the burden of singing the proper text that is closely integrated with the day, and then the congregational refrain often echoes that in a simpler way. There is also time to reflect on psalm verses sung by the choir or cantor. It’s a nice creative solution to the tension in the GIRM. If one does not have the forces to pull off the choral antiphon, you could also just do the congregational refrain with psalm verses.
@Doug O’Neill:
Doug,
You might also like to take a look at John Ainslie’s English Proper Chants, published earlier this year by Liturgical Press.
http://www.litpress.org/Search/Search.aspx?keywords=ainsliie&refine=&Group=