Offertories

[johnquinn39]

I have been asked, in the next few weeks to re-introduce 'All that I am' and 'Take my hands' (both by Sebastian Temple).

I stopped using 'All that I am' around 12 years ago - I was given to understand at the diocesan liturgy course that this was not appropriate - as it confused the issue of the offering by anticipating Christ's offering at the E.P. (and making it my offering).

Have I understood this correctly?

I can't really see anything wrong with 'Take my hands'.

What do people think?

Has anyone tried any of the 'proper' off.'s?

P.S. - I never refuse to accompany anything - but surely better texts have been written ('What can we offer you?' was reccomended in M & L some years ago in an article on this subject) - and I have also heard 'How can I repay the Lord?' (Stephen Dean's setting) Sung at this point.

Can anyone help me out on this?

[Calum Cille]

I was given to understand at the diocesan liturgy course that this was not appropriate - as it confused the issue of the offering by anticipating Christ's offering at the E.P. (and making it my offering).

Here we go again with the liturgists. The gifts of bread and wine we offer are the "work of human hands".

Donorum praesentatio ad altare gestum Melchisedech assumit et Creatoris dona manibus concredit Christi. Ipse in Suo sacrificio omnia humana conamina offerendi sacrificia ad perfectionem ducit.
The presentation of the offerings at the altar takes up the gesture of Melchizedek and commits the Creator's gifts into the hands of Christ who, in his sacrifice, brings to perfection all human attempts to offer sacrifices.

But we also offer our very selves.

In Eucharistia, sacrificium Christi fit etiam sacrificium membrorum Eius corporis. Vita fidelium, eorum laus, eorum dolor, eorum oratio, eorum labor illis Christi Eiusque totali uniuntur oblationi, et sic novum acquirunt valorem. Sacrificium Christi super altari praesens omnibus christianorum generationibus possibilitatem praebet Eius oblationi se uniendi.
In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.

Propítius, Dómine, quaésumus, hæc dona sanctífica, et, hóstiæ spiritális oblatióne suscépta, nos metípsos tibi pérfice munus ætérnum.
Graciously, O Lord, we beseech you, sanctify these gifts, and, having received the offering of this spiritual victim, may we ourselves be perfected as an eternal gift/service to you.

Now how can we ourselves be perfected as an eternal gift unless we present ourselves for the giving? And when at mass are we supposed to present ourselves for the giving? During the sursum corda?

Some offertory texts are like the following.

"O Lord God, in the simplicity of my heart I have joyfully offered all things; and I have beheld with immense joy your people gathered here. God of Israel, preserve this good intention, O Lord God."

Oh dear, mustn't confuse Christ's offering with that of his Body or any member of it. Other offertory texts are like the following.

"My heart awaited reproach and misery; and I hoped for one that would grieve together with me, but there was none; I looked for one who would comfort me, and found no one."

"Out of the depths have I cried to you O Lord, Lord hear my prayer; out of the depths have I cried to you, O Lord."

"Haily Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."

"As for me, I will appear before you in righteousness; I will be satisfied when your glory is made manifest. Give heed, O Lord, to my righteousness; be attentive to my supplication."

"But in my eyes your friends are made exceedingly honorable, O God; their strength has been greatly reinforced."

[presbyter]

I would refer you to our Bishops' guidelines - Celebrating the Mass - pages 73 onwards

[John Ainslie]

I think we should distinguish the word 'Offertory' under three headings:

1) The rite, which is now properly called the Preparation of the Gifts, and includes what is generally referred to as the Offertory Procession but is more accurately described as the Procession of Gifts.

2) The music which the General Instruction (no 74) and Celebrating the Mass (page 76) directs to be sung at this point.

3) The collection of antiphons, known as Offertoria (singular: Offertorium), developed as responsories then shortened back to antiphons again, that are to be found in the Graduale Romanum and formerly appeared in the pre-1970 Missal. These can be found in the Processional (http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Missal/Music/ProcessionalBook.pdf).

The above discussion regarding the antiphons sent me to Jungmann's Mass of the Roman Rite to find out how/why Offertoria texts have apparently little connection with the liturgical rite. Writing in the 1940s or 1950s, Jungmann says (page 329 in the one-volume edition):

As a matter of fact, a reference to what was happening at the offertory procession was superfluous as long as the practice itself was alive. The chief purpose then was not, as it is in our present-day Masss chants, to explain what was already plain enough in itself; the chief thing was to give it a religious dedication.

Now one does not have to believe Jungmann, but it is an interesting opinion from the scholar.

[Calum Cille]

Now one does not have to believe Jungmann, but it is an interesting opinion from the scholar.

I would say one has to believe Jungmann because he's simply stating the obvious. Of course texts are sung to give a religious dedication to a mute action; in purely practical terms, it's something to do while another action is taking place. And of course a reference to what was happening at the offertory procession was superfluous, as the texts bear witness. The offertory is not isolated in this respect; the phenomenon can be observed elsewhere to various degrees. There's nothing about gathering or entering in the following introit texts.

"The Lord said unto me: You are my Son, today I have begotten you."

"Abandon me not, O Lord my God, do not depart from me; come to my assistance, O Lord, mainstay of my deliverance."

"You are righteous, O Lord, and right is your judgement; deal with this servant of yours according to your mercy."

There's nothing about sharing in the Body and Blood of Christ in the following communion texts.

"Tell no one about the vision you have seen until the Son of Man has risen from the dead."

"Send forth your Spirit and all things shall be created anew, and you shall renew the face of the earth; glory be unto the Lord for ever, alleluia."

"Lend your ear and make haste to help us."

However, Jungmann could have said more. Currently, hymn texts suited to one part of the mass can be sung on multiple occasions and, to a degree, this can be likened to older Byzantine practice as exemplified in the koinonika, a practice which the Byzantines gradually moved away from. However, the older Byzantine koinonika did not rely on non-scriptural texts and, again, the scriptural texts did not necessarily reflect the purpose of the associated liturgical action. The creation of the proper in both east and west involved providing single texts for single occasions rather than single liturgical actions and that emphasis helps to explain any lack of focus on the ritual action that the proper items accompany. The real forebear of the non-scriptural communal hymns in the Roman mass are sequences, prosulas and tropes but they have been swept out of the mass for the most part.

The church has had a major clean out of non-scriptural text in the mass twice.

[John Ainslie]

...it's something to do while another action is taking place.

'Another?' The processions at the entrance, 'offertory' and communion have a significance in which the entire liturgical assembly participates, even vicariously in the case of the first two. For all the historical tradition of scriptural texts that are non-specific (thank you, CC, for documenting this), is not a text that illustrates the current liturgical action preferable, in order to draw those singing it - usually the entire assembly (no historical precedent here!) - into the liturgical action?

[Calum Cille]

...it's something to do while another action is taking place.

'Another?' The processions at the entrance, 'offertory' and communion have a significance in which the entire liturgical assembly participates, even vicariously in the case of the first two.

I mean that singing a text is a different physical action from a procession up an aisle. Brides, for example, may process up an aisle but might not be singing a text while doing so! Participating vicariously in the action of a rite is not the same as performing unvicariously the actions of a rite.

For all the historical tradition of scriptural texts that are non-specific (thank you, CC, for documenting this), is not a text that illustrates the current liturgical action preferable, in order to draw those singing it - usually the entire assembly (no historical precedent here!) - into the liturgical action?

You have raised a point which helps form a major inconsistency between the use of traditional propers and the use of modern hymns as substitutes for the propers at mass. The current trend of thought is that the hymns should 'illustrate the action' while the propers may not necessarily do so. It's a case of one rule for the propers and another for hymns.

Using an overall view of the year, we risk loss theological and psychological enrichment at those points in mass if we apply the current trend of thought unreservedly. If a congregation already gathered are stood watching an introit procession, do they really need, for numerous weeks of the year, a text which emphasises, "we're stood watching an introit procession going up to the altar of God"? And, on other weeks, another text which says the same thing with a different focus? And, on other weeks again, yet another text of a similar kind, and so on?

Imagine three people coming to mass on the 9th Sunday of the year, one who lost his job exactly a year before to the day and who has been out of work ever since, and another two who live in comparative economic security. Instead of hearing an entrance hymn saying, "We have come into this place and gathered in His name to worship Him ... so forget about yourself and concentrate on Him," they hear the following introit antiphon.

"Look upon me and have mercy on me, O Lord; for I am abandoned and destitute; consider my abjection and my labour and forgive me all my sins, my dear God."

Through this, all three are led into an entire liturgy centred on God hearing the cry of the poor. Unlike the entrance hymn, noting their physical whereabouts, telling them in VERY general terms why they came and also to leave their own life at the door, the introit facilitates immediate and full engagement with the theme of the teaching and prayer of the Church for that day. Unconsciously, the first person feels that these words have been given to him by God as his prayer and he thus senses God's compassion and God's desire to bless him. The second person hears the word "abandoned" and his thoughts are immediately drawn to the thought of orphans and children whom God has not blessed with an upbringing like his; unconsciously, he feels a mixture of compassion and concern for such children and gratitude to God concerning his own childhood. The third person notices the word "destitute" and his mind is drawn to a local unemployed drunkard he knows who has turned his own home into a pigsty; unconsciously, he feels a sense of responsibility towards the drunkard and wonders how God can help him.

In other words, the introit is not, like the entrance hymn, educating them in what entering is or should be and telling them to do it: it is actually leading them into the mass of that day and into interacting with the Spirit of God. The prayer of the Spirit at that mass opens up within them - the Spirit enters them - and stimulates in them certain awarenesses of God; the hymn on the other hand is them telling each other to be aware of God in a very general way. For me, the hymn is perhaps better at fostering the unity of those who have been gathered and accompanying the procession of the priest and ministers, but the introit antiphon is perhaps better at opening the celebration and introducing the thoughts of those who have been gathered to the mystery of the liturgical season or festivity. The communion antiphon for the same Sunday again has little explicit illustration of communion.

"Let those who know your name trust in you, O Lord; for you do not abandon those who seek you. Sing psalms to the Lord who dwells in Zion; for he does not forget the cry of the poor."

The context of communion strengthens the message of this text that God is with us and has not forgotten us or the poor and that we should believe in him. The antiphon therefore acts in context as a connector between the word of the Lord for that day and communion. The antiphon facilitates communion becoming an embodiment of what the gospel has already said that day. I think the communion antiphon on that Sunday is beautifully resonant in meaning and I sometimes wish I didn't have to sing generic 'illustrative' communion hymns on that day of the year.

Yes, I accept that not many might see the kinds of things that I do in communion antiphons but then there are those who don't get a lot out of mass anyway. I'm not sure that's a good enough reason to dumb things down in the following way every week of the year.

We have taken, offered, blessed and broken gifts of bread and wine, the fruits of our labour and love
and we have spoken the words of Christ our Lord who died: ‘take My Body, take My saving Blood.’
God has sanctified these gifts. This is Christ our Saviour, a living presence here.
He promised while on earth, ‘I am with you for all time.'

If a Catholic doesn't know this kind of stuff by adulthood, he's got problems. A lot of the above stuff is just a rehash of everything that's been said at mass before communion anyway so it's redundancy value is pretty high indeed by that point in the mass. Singing it too often is not one of the most attractive options of contemporary liturgy for me. The 'illustrate the liturgical action' approach has its weaknesses.

[Peter]

My sympathies on this one are with CC. At one church I attended regularly a few years ago, the Offertory hymn (though sung to accompany the collection rather than the procession or Preparation of Gifts) we seemed to rotate between four hymns ("All that I am", "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty", "Lord accept the gifts we offer" and "In bread we bring you"), which got pretty boring. On the occasions when I had to play (and therefore pick the hymns) I usually found something else.

CC's points about the Introit and Communion antiphons are also interesting, particularly his reference to "9th Sunday" - no need to specify which year, as they are all the same even though the readings are different. My preference is wherever possible to choose hymns that reflect on the readings of the day for the entrance, offertory and recession (for Communion we normally use Taizé chants so that people can go to receive unencumbered with service sheets and so that the singing takes the same time as the procession). It's also a practice that suits the congregation I serve; for all CC's pleading it their favour I can't see at present see chanted antiphons working there, though the comments have prompted me to question this assumption. For the moment were sticking with hymns while we learn new settings of the Ordinary.

[Calum Cille]

It's also a practice that suits the congregation I serve; for all CC's pleading it their favour I can't see at present see chanted antiphons working there, though the comments have prompted me to question this assumption.

I'm more interested in getting people used to chanting the proper psalms, rather than the proper antiphons. No one seems to show much interest in this notion. It would facilitate much more musical flexibility with modern settings of the antiphons and thus choirs could make more musically out of the opportunity to dialogue with the rest of the congregation.

[Peter]

I'm more interested in getting people used to chanting the proper psalms, rather than the proper antiphons. No one seems to show much interest in this notion. It would facilitate much more musical flexibility with modern settings of the antiphons and thus choirs could make more musically out of the opportunity to dialogue with the rest of the congregation.

Not sure what you're saying here, CC. If you're referring to the Responsorial Psalm, we do that already and have done for many years. I think that's one reason why people at my church would rather stick to hymns at the entrance, Offertory and end: it makes the Psalm seem more special. One fear expressed already is that using a chant-based setting of the Ordinary, like the Psallite Mass, will sound like more of the same and weaken the special quality of the Responsorial Psalm.

I thought, though, that this was common practice elsewhere, so I'm puzzled by your "No one seems to show much interest in this notion." If you're saying you'd like the congregation to chant a psalm at the Offertory with the choir singing an antiphon, then I'm afraid that's beyond the resources I have at my church.

However, we're in danger of going off-topic and may need to start a new thread if we want to pursue a discussion of hymns versus chant.

[Calum Cille]

I'm referring to the communal items for introit and communion items and certain offertories, Peter. These are divided into an antiphon and psalm. I also have an eye to the gradual psalm and the offertories which are probably best described as having being divided into respond and verses. In the case of introit and communion items (and any offertory that is structured in a similar fashion), I would promote the congregational singing of the psalm verses rather than the antiphon; this is not common practice and, whenever I raise the idea, it generally doesn't seem to appeal. In the case of the gradual psalm and offertory, I would promote the singing of the respond rather than the verse.

With regard to teaching choirs antiphons in English, there are simple musical options which are not resource heavy and there is material available for free online. I also however advocate the learning and memorising of the traditional latin antiphons I refer to above as I feel that the antiphons, when sung by the choir, are a good opportunity for some latin in the mass in parishes where the English translation is made available.

Chanting psalms is not too difficult for the average congregation. In my local parish, eager beavers start to join in the responsorial psalm verses in English because they know the recitation melody so well as it is used extremely frequently there. The proper texts of the offertory don't appear in my English missal nor in the mass sheet in my local parish so something has to change there in order for the offertory propers to be an option for congregational singing at all.

[Nick Baty]

If you're saying you'd like the congregation to chant a psalm at the Offertory with the choir singing an antiphon, then I'm afraid that's beyond the resources I have at my church.

I'm not sure it's that complicated Peter. We already so something like this at Evening Prayer. Admittedly, we only use three or four psalm tones but the assembly doesn't have any problems singing them – although I do lay them out under the music which helps. Then two or three cantors sing the antiphon from the breviary – some of these are to (sometimes adapted) Gregorian chants and one or two are other psalm tones which match the verses in tonality.

The proper texts of the offertory don't appear in my English missal nor in the mass sheet in my local parish so something has to change there in order for the offertory propers to be an option for congregational singing at all.

Could you include them in a service sheet? We produce one every week and they are, I suspect, cheaper than the Mass sheets I've seen in some parishes.

[nazard]

I'm fascinated to see how your ideas work out, CC. I have long felt that the verses of a psalm belong to the community and the antiphons to the choir. I can't try it out here because of our present priest's modus operandi. The collection hymn is our present practice: our pp sits firmly on the sedilia until the hymn is finished. I tried improvising after the hymn and he sat still until I stopped. We used to sing communion antiphons before the priest changed, but the new man stopped that. Keep up the good work!

[Calum Cille]

We already so something like this at Evening Prayer. ... two or three cantors sing the antiphon from the breviary – some of these are to (sometimes adapted) Gregorian chants and one or two are other psalm tones which match the verses in tonality.

This is great to hear, and crying out to be done at mass.

Could you include them in a service sheet?

This isn't a practice in my local parish but my greater concern is missals and mass-produced mass sheets not containing the proper text of the offertory anyway.

[Nick Baty]

my greater concern is missals and mass-produced mass sheets not containing the proper text of the offertory anyway.

Probably the subject of another thread, but I feel they simply impose limits on both celebrant and assembly. For example, one might be in a position to use the Introit and accompanying psalm but what if, as suggested earlier, one wishes the assembly to sing and only the antiphon is given? I'm all for ditching the lot and producing a simple sheet containing what the assembly needs and nothing more.