My pastor says to choose two traditional hymns for entrance and recessional. If one is more familiar, use it for the entrance hymn. He also says to read the words first so we don't end up with a situation where we are singing, "early in the morning our songs will rise to thee," from "Holy, Holy, Holy" at an evening mass.

From another astute list back in 2003:



We had a visiting priest a few weeks ago at our parish who made it perfectly clear that people were not to leave before the final blessing and dismissal(there are always a few who try to sneak out right after communion). I think he really upset the musicians, because quite a few people then realized that they didn’t have to stay for the closing song.

Most of the churches I’ve been to in Europe had an instrumental recessional, including the Notre Dame of Paris. If you ever get a chance to hear the organist there, you’ll remember it for the rest of your life.

So, no hymn after the "Ite, Missa est" in the OF, but by all means let's have an additional blessing, then the reading of the "Last Gospel" . . . Oh, then everyone down on their knees for the series of prayers (Hail, Holy Queen, prayer to St. Michael, etc.) in the EF.

You'll forgive the sarcasm, but let's be intellectually honest. The Mass of 1962 has at least 10 minutes worth of prayers and readings that were done by the whole of the congregation, and led by the priest before leaving the sanctuary, after the liturgical dismissal.

How many hairs do we have to continually split? How many angels can dance on the end of a pin? How many people want to fight the "closing hymn" battle instead of fighting to get reverent music restored to the liturgy at all, in place of the non-stop parade of self-indulgent love songs that most suburban congregations have crooned at them weekly?

If putting "There's A Wideness" at the end of Mass after the dismissal means that at least the people are being exposed to a solid melody and some decent theology, I'm all for it.

david,

The low mass prior to 1962 had prayers after mass too, but they never lasted that long.

We are not splitting hairs, we have already fought this battle:

How many people want to fight the "closing hymn" battle instead of fighting to get reverent music restored to the liturgy at all, in place of the non-stop parade of self-indulgent love songs that most suburban congregations have crooned at them weekly?

AND WON.

We already have and have succeeded. Why should we not want to further improve upon what we are doing, in other words, what's your problem? With a smile, but it is still a question.

I do like a nice rousing organ postlude to accompany the procession, but I too could do without the closing hymn. I could especially do without jangly tunes like City of God. With an organ recessional, people can leave as soon as the priest has finished the procession if they want. There's nothing less unifying than 1/2 of a church singing for the other half that is leaving. Good riddance.

Hymns are sung at the Entrance, the Offering and Communion to replace the Sacred text of the Mass.

Congregational Hymns after Mass....may be one reason people leave directly after receiving the Sacrament. They are an anti-climax. Don't belong and might be eliminated to encourage those who leave to stay....

Frogman,

You said, "We already have and have succeeded. Why should we not want to further improve upon what we are doing, in other words, what's your problem? With a smile, but it is still a question."


What's MY problem?!?!?!? Oh well, so much for posting a civil comment!

I give up. Perhaps YOU'VE won. . . I HAVEN'T!!!!

SOME of us still live in the world of idiot "American Idol" wannabe suburbanites who don't understand what some of us, unlike you and many on this blog apparently have already, achieved.

Congratulations. Enjoy being where you are. BUT . . .

Realize that some of us out here ARE still fighting to get a modicum of decent music back into the liturgy, and THE BATTLE ISN'T YET WON!!!

I give up. My health and sanity can't take any more of this.

David - With sympathy, I suggest taking a deep breath. It took us 40 years to get here; it's going to take a while to get back. (Unless God decides to show us the promised land, but I have a feeling I won't be entering in!) The battle isn't won? The battle is barely joined.

We really have come a long way. Surely you remember "Here we are, all together as we sing our songs, joyfully..." or perhaps "Jesus was a Carpenter..." For the most part, I figure our closing hymn is a safety valve controlling the flow of parishioners into the parking lot. If we suddenly went all chant, most would flee.

I did a quick count and learned that there are 223 Masses celebrated each week in our diocese. If we introduce better music in 5 of those Masses each year for the next 40 years we'll be pretty close to fixing the problem. But every time we go mental on folks 50 and under who sincerely believe that we ARE singing Catholic traditional hymns, we set that healing back a long way.

So let's all relax, keep our sanities, set ourselves up for the long haul, and reflect on the similarities between the tones of Adoro Te and Kumbaya.

Trying to be sensitive to the the pace at which I work toward liturgical renewal at my parish, I can say that the congregation is catechatically, liturgically, or spiritually unprepared to have its closing hymn taken away. So the fact is that I still am doing one. And the questions of what the liturgical functionality of this should be still are self posed each week. Congregations (or course not all) unfortunately have allowed for the expectation of 'big endings', an influence of any medium of pop culture, to find its way into their collective liturgical subconsciousness.

Mark M,

You raise a good point. Lent is the one time when I do a "closing hymn" for just the reason you imply. Organ music is prohibited (although one could argue that the Mass has ended at that point), and my pastor thinks people aren't "ready" to leave in silence. I'm not sure what he thinks might happen. Will they get confused and hide under the pews until suitable walking music can help them find their way out of the building? No, they will either leave or maybe stay and pray. Hopefully this Lent we can try departing in silence, now that we've gone a full year with an instrumental recessional. And if, heaven forbid, it causes someone to ask a question, well there's a great opportunity to explain that instruments aren't played during Lent except to support the singing. (Oh, but the flute part during "Jesus Remember Me" is OK, right?).

And my guess is that if you're in a place where people are actually singing the Salve Regina, chances are you have your ducks more or less in a row for the other parts of the Mass already. Am I correct? And the other concerns I mentioned wouldn't apply since 1) there are no verses to cut and 2) it would be hard to leave in the middle of it since it's so short.

"Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." (SC 22.3)
"The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved." (SC 50)

How are the recession and the accompanying recessional hymn NOT additions to the liturgy? How do they do anything other than obscure the significance of the directive "Ite, missa est,"? The directive is not, "Cantate, missa est," or, "Manete donec celebrans exierit," (Wait until the celebrant has exited.)

I can understand if an organist wishes to play music conducive to meditation by those who wish to pray after mass, since I do not think that such music could be misinterpreted as a continuation of mass.

If some in the congregation wish to sing the Salve Regina, it could be sung by those who wish to remain after the priest has exited the church or removed his vestments or at least chasuble.

When I've led chant masses, I've simply put a note in the program saying that there would be no recessional sung.

The idea that the recessional could be used as a stalling technique so the priest can get to the back of the church first is troublesome.

frogman noel,
Thank you for the gracious welcome!

I'm at work now, so I'll keep this brief, even as I'm tempted to follow and continue this discussion all day long.

As I drove in, I thought of some further responses to Noel, but Gavin splashed in with all sorts of thought-provoking stuff, so I'm not sure where to begin! (Noel, I bet you're crafting a response right now!)

...because if it were necessary to complete the liturgy, it would have been documented...

But even the priest's exiting the church isn't documented in the GIRM. As I recall, the GIRM says that after "ite, missa est," the priest kisses the altar and makes a profound bow -- but that's it. I suppose he could return to his chair and just watch the people exit if he wanted.

That said, I do see how a closing hymn "retrospectively" affects the character of the Mass. The presence or absence of music, and the character of any music used, reflects (or not) the mysteries just celebrated. This would seem to take into account the congregation's understanding of those mysteries, which is why I appreciate athome's comment that his congregation is "unprepared to have their closing hymn taken away."

Splitting hairs here, but if indeed the Mass is ended, would the prohibition of instrumental music during Lent not apply for a recessional?

Splitting hairs here, but if indeed the Mass is ended, would the prohibition of instrumental music during Lent not apply for a recessional?

Since I favor this line of reasoning, I will respond to the point. No, I don't believe the prohibition of instrumental music in Lent applies to a recessional piece. BUT I would greatly question the wisdom of using one due to it upsetting the nature of the season. I'm reminded of St. Gregory's great hymn for Lent, often sung, where the command is "more sparing, therefore, let us make the words we speak, the food we take." It isn't "only during Mass, more sparing..." For the same reason I would avoid using instrumental music at other non-Mass services, such as the Stations or a Vespers service. Even for Lenten recitals I stick to music which is penitential in nature (Always O Mensch Bewein). This just goes hand in hand with my assertion above that the music after Mass be "relevant" to the day/season.

Thank you for your story, G.

My frustration levels never seem to abate . . . they only seem to get worse.

You can imagine my frustration coming back from a much-needed vacation to play the regular weekend Mass on Saturday, replete with a celebrant (guest) who absolutely BELLOWED the opening hymn into his wireless (at a volume that drowned out the organ) along with the cantor who also was singing at the top of her lungs and overly-amped (she's been told, repeatedly, not to, but noooo, she knows better), both at their own tempi (slower than the intro I played) to the point where I was quite ready to simply stand up from the organ and walk out of the church then and there. . . for good.

I should join in and rejoice in the excellent work being done by Noel and others like him, but when I look at the amount of time and money (for not just degrees, but books, subscriptions, music, equipment, etc.) I've invested in this vocation, only to have scenes like the one above replayed over and over, week after week, I just really get thoroughly exhausted. It's doubly-frustrating because this is my sole source of income. I sometimes wonder when what I do stops being the work of the Church and begins being a form of prostitution . . . do what you're told, collect your money.

It's been suggested that I try to find a group of like-minded musicians in my geographical region who could gather as a kind of support group on a regular basis.

Anyone out there from the Twin Cities area?

"You can imagine my frustration coming back from a much-needed vacation to play the regular weekend Mass on Saturday, replete with a celebrant (guest) who absolutely BELLOWED the opening hymn into his wireless (at a volume that drowned out the organ) along with the cantor who also was singing at the top of her lungs and overly-amped (she's been told, repeatedly, not to, but noooo, she knows better), both at their own tempi (slower than the intro I played) to the point where I was quite ready to simply stand up from the organ and walk out of the church then and there. . . for good.

I should join in and rejoice in the excellent work being done by Noel and others like him, but when I look at the amount of time and money (for not just degrees, but books, subscriptions, music, equipment, etc.) I've invested in this vocation, only to have scenes like the one above replayed over and over, week after week, I just really get thoroughly exhausted. It's doubly-frustrating because this is my sole source of income. I sometimes wonder when what I do stops being the work of the Church and begins being a form of prostitution . . . do what you're told, collect your money."
To quote Dave Letterman, "My God, ladies and gentlemen, it's like I have a TWIN."
I can add to the celebrant who sings into his mike at top volume -- mine not only start out two beats behind, at a slower tempo than I (yes, musicianship sin, I sometimes play intros WAAAAY faster than I intend to play the song, hoping it will goose the celebrants,) and get slower as they go along -- they scold me regularly that my tempi are too slow! Other at meetings have backed me up that they are BEHIND me, but apparently, they don't believe me.
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

< i > italics < / i >
< b > bold < / b >
< strike > strikethrough < / strike >

Remove the spaces, and there you have it.

athome, this is why psalms are so important in Christian worship. What is appropriate to give thanks to God? Surely a psalm - the words He gave us! Indeed, one could take that argument to a not-so-crazy conclusion and say "who is the priest to speak the Postcommunion collect on our behalf! I want to give thanks with silence!" Tradition further tells us (in the Didache) that the hymn "Father, we thank thee" is appropriate for after the liturgy. Hence I would say that one should favor those texts which are scriptural or based on quite ancient tradition - at ANY point in the liturgy!

Someone mentioned, I believe, the problem of hymns being cut short. What my former boss would do (God bless him) is to stick around for a verse or two, then 2-3 verses from the end, he would stand "in formation" with the procession outside the sanctuary, and then right before the penultimate verse, bow and process out of the church. Not many priests will do this, but blessed are those who have one who will!

On the other hand, if you're not in an ideal place, I say program the least appropriate music for the exit procession so you don't have to do the whole thing! Many are the funerals I played that ended with a single verse of "Eagle's Wings"!

I don't think it's wholly wrong to be mindful of what the congregation wants to sing. Even if it's "Eagle's Wings". As much as the DMs, choir directors, cantors, etc., grouse about the limitations we face about musical selections, pity the PIPs. They're musical options consist of "Please turn to page XX and let us sing together..." Even if we have reservations about the songs, the rule applies about singing once is praying twice.

This past Saturday evening I noticed that when we sang our closing hymn, "We Are Called", nearly two thirds of the people stayed to sing both verses. Typically we have the 10% diehards stick around. And who knows - perhaps a few of the youngsters will feel themselves called to service which would be nice.

Though a recession (liturgical, not economic) and recessional hymn are not appropriate in the current O.F., I don't mean to propose that assuming such a stance is worth losing one's job over. If a director of music feels coerced into doing something of dubious legality, surely culpability is mitigated, and reducing the degree of inappopriateness is laudable. I've wondered if there are any settings of the beginning of the John's gospel (In principio erat verbum), either in English or Latin, that could be used at the end of mass. The use of such a piece could serve to highlight continuity and tradition, it's Biblical, and could be used after every Sunday mass, eventually removing the need for a hymnal.

Apropos music after the dialogue "Ite missa est...Deo gratias" or "The Mass is ended...Thanks be to God", Musicam Sacram (March 1967) is the most recent reference (that I have thus far located) that says anything about after-Mass music (hymn, postlude). MS requires a careful read as some paragraphs provide the context for or meaning of words and phrases elsewhere in the document.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_instr_19670305_musicam-sacram_en.html

28. The distinction between solemn, sung and read Mass, sanctioned by the Instruction of 1958 (n. 3), is retained, according to the traditional liturgical laws at present in force. However, for the sung Mass (Missa cantata), different degrees of participation are put forward here for reasons of pastoral usefulness, so that it may become easier to make the celebration of Mass more beautiful by singing, according to the capabilities of each congregation.

These degrees are so arranged that the first may be used even by itself, but the second and third, wholly or partially, may never be used without the first. In this way the faithful will be continually led towards an ever greater participation in the singing.

(29-30-31 details each degree)

36. There is no reason why some of the Proper or Ordinary should not be sung in said Masses. Moreover, some other song can also, on occasions, be sung at the beginning, at the Offertory, at the Communion and at the end of Mass. It is not sufficient, however, that these songs be merely "Eucharistic"—they must be in keeping with the parts of the Mass, with the feast, or with the liturgical season.

65. In sung or said Masses, the organ, or other instrument legitimately admitted, can be used to accompany the singing of the choir and the people; it can also be played solo at the beginning before the priest reaches the altar, at the Offertory, at the Communion, and at the end of Mass.

Re: Musicam Sacram, I've read two different canon lawyers give their conflicting opinions on whether the most recent GIRM's contents outweigh those of Musicam Sacram from a legal standpoint. I was won over by the canonist who argued that GIRM outweighs Musicam Sacram. I am not convinced that it outweighs Inter Oecumenici, but I'm so not a canonist.

Iohannes, it indeed seems we were talking past eachother. In theory, I do not have a problem with what you say. I suppose the issue is in implementation. The misconception that the "closing hymn" is part of the Mass is plain - take it away and, as Noel can tell us, people will say that their participation in the Mass has been stolen! One can be shocked and scandalized and cry "what can we do to fight this error?!" Rather than that, I ask "what harm is done by this error?"

I'm not saying it's ok for people to have ill views of the Mass or misconceptions about it. If this is a battle one wants, it needs to be fought through catechesis classes, listing the hymn as "the hymn after Mass" rather than "closing hymn", and even the occasional (or often) usage of other options. None of these are outlandish measures.

Of course, that's if one sees this as a serious issue. I run into a LOT of misconceptions about the Mass, as do the rest of us. Things from "the people's Great Amen is what changes the bread to the Body" or "the Mass is about celebrating the community" to relatively mundane problems such as my mother who refers to ANY religious service, Mass, Vespers, Compline, random prayer service, and even protestant services as "Mass" or people who spell "altar" as "alter". Correcting the former things should be the foremost catechetical concern of ANY decent pastor, if they are widespread opinions in the parish (and we can do things musically about them too). Correcting the latter strikes me as similar to jerks like me who correct people's grammar in a belittling tone. Where does the "closing hymn as necessity" attitude fit in? On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being denying Transubstantiation, I'd say it's a 3. You may disagree, and I grant you that right. And I'm not opposed to taking the steps above to correct it; the little things DO matter. But I wouldn't say it's imperative on us, should we have the ability, to suppress this misperception.

You ask what purpose the "recessional rite", an apt name for the normal practice of procession, serves. I would argue from the Holy Scriptures, "do all things in good order". It's just good order to have a procession of the sanctuary company out of the sanctuary. I subbed at a church for the Assumption where the priest just turned and walked into the sacristy after the dismissal - it struck me as "I just celebrated the Most Sacred Mysteries - now I just want to get the heck outa here." Indeed, maybe a priest should just throw the chausible on the floor and walk to the rectory after the dismissal? I think not. I remember a quote on here from a seminary professor - "if you walk into a pillar, take 3 steps back and bow to the pillar." Surely that's not in the GIRM, but the attitude of wanting to do all things in good order, even if it has the APPEARANCE (not the reality) of adding to the Mass is laudable?

Vest in a cope? It seems very suitable to me, given it is a non-Mass procession. But I don't know the ceremonial of the rite well. And I'd remind you and all in this thread that, as far as I know, none of us are priests. If we don't have the Roman collar, I don't see it as our place to criticize the ceremonial of a priest. At least I see it as "above my pay grade". I'm not saying we need to shut up about this, we can certainly discuss the pastoral ramifications of a priest's actions, but surely the fact that countless GOOD priests (I need not list names) do this should give us pause before demanding an end to it, shouldn't it?

I had a longer comment written, but my log-in must have gotten timed out, and I lost it.

My understanding is that GIRM supercedes MS. For instance, MS determined that choirs with females should not be in the sanctuary. This restrictiton was tacitly removed in GIRM (I know of no other liturgical document that abrogated the MS directive previous to GIRM).

I agree that the removing the recessional from its usual placement in the mass is probably about a 3 and that there are many more important priorities. I do have to admit, though, that a tidy exit from the sanctuary to the sacristy never really bothered me. I also like the idea of the last words that the assembled congregation say together are, "Deo gratias!" It is, after all, the Eucharist, a thanksgiving.

In any case, if there is to be a recessional, some hymns, such as those that focus on the Trinity, really need to have their full text sung. This is true regardless of placement in the liturgy. Other hymns might have a more poignant meaning if all verses are sung, but a lot of songs like that have sturdy enough first verses that there really isn't a need to sing the whole thing if the priest has already exited (e.g. Love Divine, All Loves Excelling). I, myself, really like to sing, and all the same I feel like having to sing after the priest has left is kind of an imposition on the part of the music director. It's not clear what we're supposed to be doing. Sometimes it feels like the organist just keeps wanting to play or is oblivious to the fact that the priest has left the building. Although people may feel like they are having part of their role reduced if the recessional is removed, I see a lot of people at mass itching to leave as soon as the priest does.