when are musicians supposed to receive communion
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
-
Ros Wood
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 4:19 pm
- Parish / Diocese: Christ the King Chingford - Brentwood Diocese
- Location: London
when are musicians supposed to receive communion
According to the liturgical documents, the Communion Song is supposed to start as soon as the priest receives Communion. On a purely practical level, is it possible for the musicians in your average parish (i.e. not blessed with many musicians who can "take turns" at providing congregational support during communion) to receive Communion? Any thoughts?
It's a tricky one, that! I suppose the most liturgically corect option is to start singing something straight away that doesn't require music or even musicians, such as a Taizé chant. There is inevitably going to be a gap of silence at some point while the musicians receive communion though.
'Twiddling in the spirit' - I like that concept
'Twiddling in the spirit' - I like that concept
What the documetns say:
GIRM 2003:
86. During the priest’s reception of the Sacrament the Communion chant is begun. This singing is meant to express the communicants’ union in spirit by means of the unity of their voices, to give evidence of joy of heart, and to highlight more the “communitarian†nature of the Communion procession. The singing continues for as long as the faithful are receiving the Sacrament.74 If, however, there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion chant should be ended at the right time. Care should be taken that singers too can conveniently receive Communion.
87. An antiphon from the Graduate Romanum, with or without the psalm, or an antiphon with psalm from the Graduate Simplex, or some other suitable liturgical song approved by the Conference of Bishops may be sung at Communion. This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or cantor with the people. If there is no singing, however, the Communion antiphon found in the Missal may be recited either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a reader. Otherwise the priest himself says it after he has received Communion and before he distributes Communion to the faithful.
88. When the distribution of Communion is finished, as circumstances allow, the priest and faithful spend some time praying privately. If desired, a psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the entire congregation.
89. To bring to completion the prayer of the people of God, and also to conclude the entire Communion rite, the priest sings or says the prayer after Communion in which he petitions for the fruits of the mystery just celebrated.
Note: this is the latest translation of the latest GIRM that I could find - from the US, where else? We, in England and Wales, don't have this one yet - but the 1975 version is not far from this, anyway.
It would seem to me that what is being called for is this: a chanted psalm, using the communion antiphon proper to the day (or another song); singers receiving the Eucharist; SILENCE; song of thanksgiving/praise; post-communion prayer; dismissal. There is NO recessional song in GIRM, so this last thanksgiving song is "That's all folks".
If we use a chanted psalm, or an unaccompanied Taizé song, or some of the Wild Goose short, repetitive choruses, for the communion song where is the real problem? I suspect, only in the challenge to the four-hymn sandwich! Perhaps we need to ask "what is liturgically most appropriate here?" and the answer is probably not a closed-form, such as a hymn or a motet. With an open-form of 'circular' chant, the singing can be sustained as long as it is needed and curtailed swiftly without loosing sense of the text; no-one needs to be stuck in the organ loft, or clatter to the front to get there first; and the only break in an individual's singing would be as they themselves receive.
I've heard it asked "What is the difference between a procession and a queue?", with the answer : "singing". If the choir skuttles up first with no music, they're not part of the procession, but of the queue... which is to misunderstand the ministry, surely? Be bold - take your time over processing to communion and sing without the organ or instruments. Choose to be part of the assembly at this point; you'll be surprised how much they will sing with you when things are unaccompanied. Most importantly, do not loose sight of the SILENCE and private prayer...
Just my two-penn'th!
86. During the priest’s reception of the Sacrament the Communion chant is begun. This singing is meant to express the communicants’ union in spirit by means of the unity of their voices, to give evidence of joy of heart, and to highlight more the “communitarian†nature of the Communion procession. The singing continues for as long as the faithful are receiving the Sacrament.74 If, however, there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion chant should be ended at the right time. Care should be taken that singers too can conveniently receive Communion.
87. An antiphon from the Graduate Romanum, with or without the psalm, or an antiphon with psalm from the Graduate Simplex, or some other suitable liturgical song approved by the Conference of Bishops may be sung at Communion. This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or cantor with the people. If there is no singing, however, the Communion antiphon found in the Missal may be recited either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a reader. Otherwise the priest himself says it after he has received Communion and before he distributes Communion to the faithful.
88. When the distribution of Communion is finished, as circumstances allow, the priest and faithful spend some time praying privately. If desired, a psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the entire congregation.
89. To bring to completion the prayer of the people of God, and also to conclude the entire Communion rite, the priest sings or says the prayer after Communion in which he petitions for the fruits of the mystery just celebrated.
Note: this is the latest translation of the latest GIRM that I could find - from the US, where else? We, in England and Wales, don't have this one yet - but the 1975 version is not far from this, anyway.
It would seem to me that what is being called for is this: a chanted psalm, using the communion antiphon proper to the day (or another song); singers receiving the Eucharist; SILENCE; song of thanksgiving/praise; post-communion prayer; dismissal. There is NO recessional song in GIRM, so this last thanksgiving song is "That's all folks".
If we use a chanted psalm, or an unaccompanied Taizé song, or some of the Wild Goose short, repetitive choruses, for the communion song where is the real problem? I suspect, only in the challenge to the four-hymn sandwich! Perhaps we need to ask "what is liturgically most appropriate here?" and the answer is probably not a closed-form, such as a hymn or a motet. With an open-form of 'circular' chant, the singing can be sustained as long as it is needed and curtailed swiftly without loosing sense of the text; no-one needs to be stuck in the organ loft, or clatter to the front to get there first; and the only break in an individual's singing would be as they themselves receive.
I've heard it asked "What is the difference between a procession and a queue?", with the answer : "singing". If the choir skuttles up first with no music, they're not part of the procession, but of the queue... which is to misunderstand the ministry, surely? Be bold - take your time over processing to communion and sing without the organ or instruments. Choose to be part of the assembly at this point; you'll be surprised how much they will sing with you when things are unaccompanied. Most importantly, do not loose sight of the SILENCE and private prayer...
Just my two-penn'th!
Last edited by Benevenio on Sun Apr 04, 2004 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Benevenio.
GIRM
In case anyone was wondering, GIRM (pronounced "germ") is the General Instruction on the Roman Missal. Required reading for pastoral musicians and liturgists, it can be found at the front of the Roman Missal. It is also available separately, e.g. as a CTS pamphlet.
Welcome to the forum, Maz
Musicus
Welcome to the forum, Maz
Musicus
The problems I see in connection with these sorts of issue are:
1. Reluctance to change, amongst clergy and parishioners. Although documents such as GIRM exist people don't have access to them or don't consult them and decisions are generally made based on "that's what we always do" or "that's what father X prefers" rather than having a basis in anything concrete. When you dare to suggest that something is liturgically inappropriate people look at you as if you are completely insane or just go into denial.
2. Lack of education on what should/shouldn't/can/can't/may be done. How many people have read any documents on the liturgy (apart from us lot)? Before I started studying the liturgy I knew absolutely zero about what was going on in the Mass - I turned up, did my bit and left - and I think that is true of the majority of worshippers.
3. Things are done in a particular way because it suits people/is convenient. Routine is surprisingly powerful.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now!
Seriously though, I know it's really up to those in the know to inform those who aren't but it can be like traipsing through mud sometimes.
Maz
1. Reluctance to change, amongst clergy and parishioners. Although documents such as GIRM exist people don't have access to them or don't consult them and decisions are generally made based on "that's what we always do" or "that's what father X prefers" rather than having a basis in anything concrete. When you dare to suggest that something is liturgically inappropriate people look at you as if you are completely insane or just go into denial.
2. Lack of education on what should/shouldn't/can/can't/may be done. How many people have read any documents on the liturgy (apart from us lot)? Before I started studying the liturgy I knew absolutely zero about what was going on in the Mass - I turned up, did my bit and left - and I think that is true of the majority of worshippers.
3. Things are done in a particular way because it suits people/is convenient. Routine is surprisingly powerful.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now!
Seriously though, I know it's really up to those in the know to inform those who aren't but it can be like traipsing through mud sometimes.
Maz
-
Tsume Tsuyu
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 9:40 am
- Location: UK
I agree with much of what you say, Maz, having moved slowly over the years from a state of blissful ignorance about these things to one of some knowledge, but with absolutely no idea how to educate others.
You are right about there being a reluctance to change and, whatever we do, we need to be careful not to pull the rug out from under people, not to try and whip them out of the comfort zone they've reclined in for years just because we've been doing it wrong for all this time and must now do it right.
I agree too, that very few people have actually read the church documents, or even want to. Most parishioners are almost certainly led by what Father says and does and wouldn't dream of questioning any aspect of the liturgy.
However, I think we do have a responsibility to try and get things right. And it is possible to introduce changes in a gradual, non-threatening way, provided you have the support of your PP. Without that, I accept that you are probably scuppered. Changing what we sing at Communion, when we start to sing and when we move for communion are things we can probably do without disturbing the status quo too much. We need to be aware of how we should be doing things and try to move towards that, whilst always having regard for those parishioners who might feel threatened by change. I believe we need to balance our responsibility for good liturgy with being sensitive to the feelings of our parish community and this is why change seems such a slow process.
TT
You are right about there being a reluctance to change and, whatever we do, we need to be careful not to pull the rug out from under people, not to try and whip them out of the comfort zone they've reclined in for years just because we've been doing it wrong for all this time and must now do it right.
I agree too, that very few people have actually read the church documents, or even want to. Most parishioners are almost certainly led by what Father says and does and wouldn't dream of questioning any aspect of the liturgy.
However, I think we do have a responsibility to try and get things right. And it is possible to introduce changes in a gradual, non-threatening way, provided you have the support of your PP. Without that, I accept that you are probably scuppered. Changing what we sing at Communion, when we start to sing and when we move for communion are things we can probably do without disturbing the status quo too much. We need to be aware of how we should be doing things and try to move towards that, whilst always having regard for those parishioners who might feel threatened by change. I believe we need to balance our responsibility for good liturgy with being sensitive to the feelings of our parish community and this is why change seems such a slow process.
TT
Well said TT.
I have sung in many choirs in different countries and there really does not seem to be a 'norm'. The ones I have felt uncomfortable with were the ones who clatter to the front of the church way too early but to make sure they receive first so they can get back to sing. I also feel something is missing when the choir receive separately from the rest of the congregation, and particularly when we have received after Mass is over.
I like hearing the congregation singing Soul of My Saviour at communion because they do actually sing it. The older ones don't need to be carrying a hymn book. Taize chants usually have a good chance too, unless they are too 'staged'.
I have sung in many choirs in different countries and there really does not seem to be a 'norm'. The ones I have felt uncomfortable with were the ones who clatter to the front of the church way too early but to make sure they receive first so they can get back to sing. I also feel something is missing when the choir receive separately from the rest of the congregation, and particularly when we have received after Mass is over.
I like hearing the congregation singing Soul of My Saviour at communion because they do actually sing it. The older ones don't need to be carrying a hymn book. Taize chants usually have a good chance too, unless they are too 'staged'.
-
organist
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 11:39 pm
- Parish / Diocese: Westminster cathedral
- Location: London
- Contact:
communion
We use the Lamb of God so sing 2 verses of the Farrell or Inwood setting during the fraction then silence and then more verses at the start of the communion rite. I don't much like "twiddling in the spirit" - I prefer a proper voluntary. A hymn or motet follows. This still leaves the problem of when does the organist receive. I have actually been asked after a big Catenian funeral about this as I like to take a full part and join with others at this moment. I'm in favour of some silence at communion especially at the end. There's not enough silence in our lives.
On a similar point of taking a full part, I have asked our priests not to rush on to the fraction after the peace to give time to exchange the Peace. Why are we sometimes in such a hurry to get through Mass?
On a similar point of taking a full part, I have asked our priests not to rush on to the fraction after the peace to give time to exchange the Peace. Why are we sometimes in such a hurry to get through Mass?
I agree with you, Organist, that we don't have enough silence in our lives. I was really glad to have the opportunity to watch in silence after Mass on Thursday - during what is a very busy liturgical season. It seems that we need to be told to be silent otherwise we just fill spaces with noises of some kind.
It is difficult for organists receiving communion - especially when there are winding staircases, creaking doors and long walks down the aisle before reaching the sanctuary. I think we need to let go of that terribly British notion of silence being uncomfortable and perhaps rude - because by cramming the liturgy with music the organist/musicians are denied their needs and can feel short-changed - because they are the ones 'in charge' of filling any silences with appropriate music.
It is difficult for organists receiving communion - especially when there are winding staircases, creaking doors and long walks down the aisle before reaching the sanctuary. I think we need to let go of that terribly British notion of silence being uncomfortable and perhaps rude - because by cramming the liturgy with music the organist/musicians are denied their needs and can feel short-changed - because they are the ones 'in charge' of filling any silences with appropriate music.
-
gwyn
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:42 pm
- Parish / Diocese: Archdiocese of Cardiff
- Location: Abertillery, South Wales UK
Re: communion
organist wrote: I don't much like "twiddling in the spirit" - I prefer a proper voluntary.
Depends on the qualitiy of the improvisation doesn't it? A skilled, sensitive improvisation can be delighfully meditative while some pre-written voluntaries completely miss the mark liturgically.