The Trouble with Communion Processionals and beyond…

[Gedackt flute]

Suspect you're jesting GF.

I wish I was Nick!

At a parish I used to help out in, the new priest 'banned' the singing of the psalm and acclamations, and put this rule into practice.

I have been frequently yelled at over the years, and told that I do not like Our Lady, when I do not put on 'As I kneel before you' (which is of course 'traditional') at communion.

Where does this rule come from? (Oscott coll. maybe?)

[docmattc]

At the risk of causing a slight detour from topic, what is considered suitable to be sung during communion, in the light of the following from CTM:

Many traditional Eucharistic hymns were composed for Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament. They concentrate on adoration rather than on the action of communion and may not be appropriate as communion songs.

[Nick Baty]

I have heard of GF's tale in other places. It's an interesting one. Perhaps it could form the basis of a new thread: what not suitable where?

[Gedackt flute]

It's a thread to discover what works well and what doesn't.

Okay, at the 10.00 -- what works, juusstt about, as the comm. antiphon -- Eagles wings (Joncas) -- As the deer (Hurd) -- One bread, one body (Foley) -- Here I am Lord (Schutte) -- I will see you again (Psallite) -- Lord, we are always in your presence -- Jakob

'Here I am' is the first song I have heard RC's singing in the procession. One parishioner even came back from commmunion, put his rosary down and opened the hymn book!

What doesn't work -- pretty well any Taize -- James Biery's antiphons (see: http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/Len ... s/17330279). (Not a criticism of Berthier of Biery).

I have not tried any latin, so I don't know if it works -- has anyone else? I also rather liked Taste & see in the Paul Ford Gradual - but I am in a minority of one in liking this in the music group I serve.

This discussion came up at choir rehersal last night, and we all thought that there are simply not enough good tunes going round. I have been looking in vain for anything of the remotest musical interest on the 'traditional' web sites, although I get the feeling that active participation is the last thing that our trad. friends are interested in.

[Nick Baty]

It all depends on how you define "traditional", GF.
There are many easily singable antiphons out there – simple enough for an assembly on the move. (Whether or not they do sing is a different question, of course!)
What sort of things are you looking for? I'm sure the folk on here could make quite a few suggestions.

[Gedackt flute]

It all depends on how you define "traditional", GF.
There are many easily singable antiphons out there – simple enough for an assembly on the move. (Whether or not they do sing is a different question, of course!)
What sort of things are you looking for? I'm sure the folk on here could make quite a few suggestions.

By 'traditional', I mean contemporary quasi-plainsong -- this sort of thing -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3JAD0Wuz3Y.

What I am looking for is to find musical settings of the comm. propers that people will take ownership of and sing.

[Gedackt flute]

(Some clergy then lead the congregation in reciting 'O sacrament most holy').

Are such additions/extensions to the rites fairly commonplace? Why is there a feeling that they are needed, in some places?[/quote] (Peter Jones)

As far as I know -- yes.

I think that what we need to look at is the popular perception of the liturgy, which is rather removed from the instructions in the official documents.

Many people I have spoken to see scriptural chants as an interlopers at communion -- and items such as 'O sacrament most holy' -- 'Sweet sacrament divine' etc. as the 'real' texts, which have been ousted by the liturgists, and are in need of restoration.

Also, I think many priests do not like silence after communion, and wish to fill this space with popular devotional material.

[docmattc]

Are such additions/extensions to the rites fairly commonplace? Why is there a feeling that they are needed, in some places?

In contrast to GF's experience, other than sometimes (rarely) a dismissal of EMHCs taking communion to the sick (cf CTM 220, 221) I've never encountered such additions.

[Southern Comfort]

Where I was organist previously a communion processional was started after the choir received (I tried changing this to choir receiving last and starting the singing as the celebrant received but logistically it didn't work).

I would like to contest this viewpoint. If you want it to work enough, it will — i.e. the choir starting the singing immediately, and receiving later. Many parishes in this part of the world have moved to this procedure and report no difficulties with it, once it has settled down.

[Southern Comfort]

Are such additions/extensions to the rites fairly commonplace? Why is there a feeling that they are needed, in some places?

Probably because the concluding rites of the Roman Rite are rather brusque. The Roman Rite's attitude could be characterized as "You've done what you came to do. Now get out, and change the world!" The rite as practised in many of our parishes is "We can't bear to tear ourselves away just yet. Subconsciously we are aware of a substantial section of introductory rites, ditto for the Liturgy of the Word, and ditto for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Spending a little more time taking leave of each other just feels more balanced." It is interesting to see how the participatory nature of the post-conciliar liturgy has led to a valuing of being together to celebrate in community. Before Vatican II, that was not the case at Low Mass at all. Once it was over, you went at once. Many people dodged out at Communion, before it was over (and they had probably only arrived for the offertory and may not even have received Communion themselves). I don't remember coffee and biscuits in the parish hall at all in my Tridentine youth. It simply didn't happen.

[Nick Baty]

the choir starting the singing immediately, and receiving later.

Or, as we do, the choir receives with the assembly – they simply become a part of the communion procession, leaving a cantor or three to sing the verses.

[Southern Comfort]

We don't normally make an issue of giving Communion to the Eucharistic Ministers to take out to the sick or housebound, though I have known in done, notably in my father's parish when I was caring for him in his final illness. When he was not well enough to attend Mass I would take him Communion and went up at the end of Mass to collect a pyx along with others doing a similar service. We were not "blessed" as such but formally given the Sacrament to take to the sick. While not strictly "needed", I felt it was a dignified gesture, making it clear that the sick were still a part of the parish community, sharing the same Sacrament the rest had received in the Mass.

In the diocese of Brentwood, the sending-forth of the ministers of the Communion to the sick and housebound at the end of Sunday Mass was mandated by the bishop, and I believe takes place in most if not all parishes of that diocese. In my own diocese, a majority of parishes would be doing this every Sunday, and some even on weekdays when it is not possible to take Communion to some of the sick and housebound on a Sunday. I have heard that is also common elsewhere.

This joining to the celebrating community of those who cannot be physically present seems to be a powerful inclusive symbol, and perhaps one day it will even make its appearance in the Roman Rite. (The reason why it did not appear in the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal is because (a) the underlying agenda there is to elevate the status of the priest, not acknowledge the role of service of other ministers, and (b) because those in Rome have no concept of what it is like at the grass roots: they have never seen lay ministers of Communion, for a start; they are not needed in Rome, because the city is crawling with priests!)

[docmattc]

This is not a thread to chastise those who are not following the documents. It's a thread to find out what happens at the moment. It's a thread to comment on the documents. It's a thread to discover what works well and what doesn't.

Where I was organist previously a communion processional was started after the choir received (I tried changing this to choir receiving last and starting the singing as the celebrant received but logistically it didn't work).

I would like to contest this viewpoint. If you want it to work enough, it will — i.e. the choir starting the singing immediately, and receiving later. Many parishes in this part of the world have moved to this procedure and report no difficulties with it, once it has settled down.

What a pity SC has not followed Fr Peter's description of the thread above. There was no view point expressed, simply a reporting of the facts in a situation which SC is completely unaware of. He has no way of knowing for how long this was tried, how much it was wanted to work and what the difficulties may or may not have been. There is a clear judgemental inference in his post. It is exactly posts of this type, which make the forum unpleasant and show why it should be shut down.

[moderated - Musicus]

[Nick Baty]

Let's not go there, DocMatt. The problem with the blogged word is that one cannot hear the nuances in the writer's voice. I read SC's comment simply as a polite challenge and a suggestion of how things could go. Let's keep the channels open and continue to swap ideas.

[kerrezza]

When the piece sung at Communion is just the choir our very small choir of 7 goes to receive one at a time with the assembly; we are situated in the body of the church close to the sanctuary. Most Sundays the organist plays a piece of suitable music over the assemblies procession then there is a hymn of thanksgiving after or if the words of the hymn are more suitable to be played during reception of the Eucharist it will be played whilst the assembly is receiving which is started in time for it to be finished before the pp goes back to the chair so that there is a little post communion silence.