Guidelines for readers

[HelenR]

This is my first attempt at posting a topic so please be patient if I am long winded but I am looking for advice (and education) on guidelines for Readers. I know I have major gaps in my knowledge of the liturgy and also can’t remember pre Vatican 2 but I have been presented for guidelines for reading in my church which rang alarm bells and made me feel uncomfortable. The only trouble is I don’t know how to present the case to counter the person who has introduced them claiming the Parish Priest has said it is okay and they do it in Ireland so that is what we must do.

Firstly
"The readers meet up on bricks at the side of the Lectern (which is behind the altar) and bow to the tabernacle"
In other churches, I have always bowed to the Book of Gospels on the altar which is in front of the tabernacle but understood that our reverence at this time was to the Gospel and the altar. I understood from GIRM, the emphasis should be on the Eucharistic sacrifice of Jesus celebrated in the mass not on the tabernacle.

Secondly
“After the First and Second Reading the readers say "The word of the Lord" omitting 'this is' - Jesus is the Word - The book is not the Word"
I know that the words will change when the new missal is finally accepted but is it okay for our Parish Priest to unilaterally decide to change words and when I say "This is the Word of the Lord" as written in the Lectionary, am I saying that the physical book is the Word or am I saying that what I have just proclaimed is the Word of the Lord

Help I think I am going mad and would love someone to reassure me that actually what is suggested is the right thing to be doing or to tell me to chill because what does it matter really what we do. I know deep down that the actual words of the readings, the reverence and prayers of the readers as they proclaim the Word of God to people and their effectiveness in bringing Christ to the people, is what really matters but I get distracted by ephemera (I think that’s the word I want) and I want to get it straight in my head. Thank you for any help

[SOP]

HI Helen - I am afraid that everyone you ask will give you a different answer. If your Parish Priest is giving you a set of instructions they follow them when at that particular church but be ready to 'forgive' visiting readers who do not do things in the same way.

Over the past 20 years I have been given so many sets of instructions it is unbelievable. "Bow to the priest", "bow to the altar", "don't bow".

As to "Word of the Lord", "This is the Word of the Lord", as long as the lectionary I am reading from has written in black "This is the Word of the Lord" then that is what I will say. Anything written in red is for guidance and not to be read out loud, all in black is for reading out loud.

Please don't allow all the different instructions you receive to interfere with the actual reading. I have adopted an attitude of God will forgive me even if the PP won't.

[docmattc]

the person who has introduced them ...has said it is okay and they do it in Ireland so that is what we must do.

Its interesting how often "Well they do it" is interpreted as law, unless of course I don't agree with "how they do it" in which case 'they' are bound to be wrong! If something is approved by the Irish Bishop's conference, it doesn't necessarily mean it is here. I can't actually find any specific guidelines for readers either in GIRM or CTM regarding the means of them getting to the Ambo.

"The readers meet up on bricks at the side of the Lectern (which is behind the altar) and bow to the tabernacle"
In other churches, I have always bowed to the Book of Gospels on the altar which is in front of the tabernacle but understood that our reverence at this time was to the Gospel and the altar. I understood from GIRM, the emphasis should be on the Eucharistic sacrifice of Jesus celebrated in the mass not on the tabernacle.

You're right about the empahsis. I would always bow to the altar during Mass. Of course if the book of Gospels is on it, and the tabernacle directly behind it, the object of my reverence is ambigous to anyone watching. The symbolism of having the Lectern behind the Altar is an interesting one, but maybe for another topic.

“After the First and Second Reading the readers say "The word of the Lord" omitting 'this is' - Jesus is the Word - The book is not the Word"

I would stick to the approved text ideally until its changed, but I don't feel its worth getting too bothered about. If it's going to cause world war three in the parish to say 'This is', go with the flow. You are saying that the Word you have proclaimed is the Word of God, not talking about the book.

As SOP says, what's important is that you proclaim the Word of God in a way that the people are able to respond to it, the 'trimmings' are secondary to that.

[contrabordun]

“After the First and Second Reading the readers say "The word of the Lord" omitting 'this is' - Jesus is the Word - The book is not the Word

Glad to see that at least one priest is taking seriously the risk that the simple faithful might think the Incarnation took the form of a large book with a red leather cover.

[dunstan]

I was told (so it must be true) that you bow to the priest to acknowledge that he has delegated the act of proclaiming the word - a sort of "thank you for granting us this privilege".

[asb]

We had a priest once who said the reader should bow th the Crucifix behind the Altar (tabernacle is to the right).

In France, the official wording is "Parole du Seigneur" (word of the Lord)

[docmattc]

I was told (so it must be true) that you bow to the priest to acknowledge that he has delegated the act of proclaiming the word - a sort of "thank you for granting us this privilege".

Interesting to know how that squares with GIRM:

By tradition, the function of proclaiming the readings is ministerial, not presidential. The readings, therefore, should be proclaimed by a lector, and the Gospel by a deacon or, in his absence, a priest other than the celebrant.

Granted a reader is not usually an instituted lector, but surely the principle still stands.

[SOP]

I was told (so it must be true) that you bow to the priest to acknowledge that he has delegated the act of proclaiming the word - a sort of "thank you for granting us this privilege".

I have been told that too. A further explanation was that by bowing to the tabernacle we are putting God into a small box when He has said that where two or three are gathered in His name, He would be there. "The Lord be with you" "And also with you" but not really, he is back there in that little box.

I have also been told we are not bowing the tabernacle but the altar - which makes sense.

Problem is, it all makes sense.

[Gabriel]

My understanding is that on approaching the Sanctuary one bows to the Altar - as it signifies Christ (GIRM 298) - and arguably in the same way as the Entrance Procession (noting that one only genuflects to Tabernacle at the beginning of Mass).

Though my view would be that one uses the words in the Missal/Lectionary until they change; I would balance that with it is distracting for the assembly if one reader says something and others say something else.

[HelenR]

Thank you for all your comments and helpful advice. And SOP, thank you there are as many opinions as contributors but it is nice that I can respond to our guidelines and come up with alternatives with some iota of credibility rather than a rant which I would have given before.

I would particularly like to thank contrabordum

Glad to see that at least one priest is taking seriously the risk that the simple faithful might think the Incarnation took the form of a large book with a red leather cover

Thanks to you I will will have to abide by the new instructions with reservations, as I will no longer be able to say "this is" with out laughing.

[contrabordun]

I would particularly like to thank contrabordum

You're welcome!

However...

contrabordun, n. a quiet organ pedal stop of 16' pitch
contrabordum, n. a copy of Private Eye slipped into the music case for use during Anglican sermons

[Benevenio]

Glad to see that at least one priest is taking seriously the risk that the simple faithful might think the Incarnation took the form of a large book with a red leather cover.

In part, though, we are lead to this understanding by the way the book of the Gospels is reverenced - with incense and signing the cross on the book and the lips, head and breast before the proclamation and by kissing the book afterwards - sometimes lifting it up to show people whilst saying "(This is) the gospel of the Lord". It would seem that the book itself is of importance.

[Southern Comfort]

Glad to see that at least one priest is taking seriously the risk that the simple faithful might think the Incarnation took the form of a large book with a red leather cover.

In part, though, we are lead to this understanding by the way the book of the Gospels is reverenced - with incense and signing the cross on the book and the lips, head and breast before the proclamation and by kissing the book afterwards - sometimes lifting it up to show people whilst saying "(This is) the gospel of the Lord". It would seem that the book itself is of importance.

Today's liturgists would agree that the book is important - a kind of tabernacle of the Lord's presence - and that venerating it with incense, kissing, etc, is also important. Liturgies where the book is taken around for people (e.g. disabled people) to touch are extremely powerful. But the book is not the word, only a container of the potential for the word, if you like. It's a symbolic presence, not a real one, in the same way that the tabernacle isn't the Blessed Sacrament that it contains.

That's why presiders and deacons are discouraged from lifting the book while saying "(This is) the gospel of the Lord" precisely because this can easily give the impression that this (the book) is the gospel of the Lord - i.e. the word is present in the book - when actually it's the proclaimed word which is the only true word. Lots of clergy have still not heard this message, and continue to lift the book, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

A useful analogy could be the old illuminated books of chant that were used in monasteries. Through their beauty, they said something about God's presence in the sung word, and they were (and are) rightly reverenced as repositories of God's beauty. But the sung word only comes into existence when it is sung - it does not exist as such on the page; only the potential for its existence does.

[docmattc]

Resurrecting this thread, the Zenit liturgy Prof, Father Edward McNamara addresses a similar question here. His answers broadly agree with ours here.