To me this is a major reason for singing the antiphons with Psalms. That provides the time for everyone to receive and the music to continue.

GIRM 86 just seems wrong to me. If music during communion is supposed to express the unity of the communicants, why has the Church appointed texts such as "The Lord spat on the ground and anointed my eyes" or "You are Peter: and upon this rock I will build my church" or "Andrew said to his brother Simon: We have found the Messiah, called the Christ: and he brought him to Jesus"? If you look at the Communion, you find that is rarely eucharistic in nature. With the exception of "Ubi caritas" (which is designated as an option for communion in the Graduale Simplex), I can't think of a Communion with a text that is intended to express unity. I think this is a case where the GIRM is being descriptive rather than prescriptive.

To answer your question: if you don't have enough people in the choir so that you can have at least two people singing the antiphon and at least one person singing the verses while the others receive, I suggest two options. Either extend the communion with an unaccompanied chant hymn or organ music so that the choir or organist can receive, or have the musicians receive after Mass. Receiving after Mass does not affect the sacramental nature of the eucharist.

I rarely Holy Communion at Masses where I'm playing or directing. Sometimes it's a function of logistics (right now I'm in a big old church with a loft half a city block back from the altar rail. More often it's that I can't change gears from my "musical" state of mind. The good thing about being a Catholic is that there are lots of opportunities other than those Sunday Masses.

I've quibbled with choirs about when they should receive. I prefer that they go first. If there's a mania for singing, I can start it. When the choir receives at the end, I know they're always watching the lines and not me. (Well, no one ever watches the director anyway.)

ISTM that for liturgical music ministers in a tribune, loft, gallery, whatever you want to call it, there are three alternatives: 1) request that a designated Extraordinary Minister come up to the loft, 2) have members of the choir, etc., trundle up and down the stairs in shifts, or 3) receive immediately after Mass.

If you're of an orthopraxis mindset, option 1 doesn't really work. Option 2 is noisy and distracting. Option 3 makes great sense to me, although I've never been in a situation where that has been done.

I share CharlesW's point of view on this. I'm often not properly disposed to receive the Blessed Sacrament, as the Church requires, and so I more often than not cannot receive.

When I am alone without a choir, I receive after Mass. I like this because it gives me plenty of time to make a thanksgiving after receiving. When the choir is present, a Eucharistic Minister brings Holy Communion to the choir loft. I tell the choir to begin receiving Immediately so as not to keep the Minister waiting and so that he/she can return the Hosts to the tabernacle before Communion is finished.

When choir is in session, we customarily use the chorister-as-EMHC option (there are 1001 other EMHC's anyway). When that is not the case, or for school masses during the week, it is my practice to receive immediately after mass from a priest or deacon, if possible. I actually prefer this option because (at least in my mind), it cuts down on the number of EMHC "needed".

Thanks to all for responding. Here's "the rest of the story":

I started my organist job earlier this year. I was also asked to start a choir, which I have done. The choir is young, consisting of college students and younger. They are talented, but not yet confident. This means I can't leave them alone to chant/sing a capella. (I did once and it wasn't pretty.)

We tried receiving Communion first as a group, but the quick trip from the front of the church to the choir loft, including the steps, leaves one a little breathless. That's a problem when trying to sing.

I am trying my best to comply with both Universal Church USCCB documents, which means that I am now starting the Communion antiphon or hymn when the priest Communicates. I watch the lines, and signal to the choir when they should stop singing and head downstairs.The best solution I've found so far is to end the music a little early and sprint to the front of the church; unfortunately, the timing has worked one out of ten times.

So far, I've been properly disposed to receive the Sacrament, and I sure do NEED the graces. There's no other Mass to attend after this one on Saturday night, and I don't live close to the church. I have occasionally returned on Sunday morning, but it isn't practical (sounds bad, but it's the truth.) I have other duties -- I'm a full-time student, a wife, and a homeschooling mother of four children. Cut me some slack!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it wasn't permitted to receive Communion regularly outside of Mass. Also, it makes me nervous to think of an EMHC bringing Communion up our steep steps.

I will send this thread to my priest (who asked me to post this question), and I hope we come up with a workable solution.

What happens in my parish is that the choir receives first (including the musicians) and then they begin the song. What is done in school choirs is that half of them go to Communion and when they return to their place, the other half goes. Maybe you might consider that option.

I realize this is more a matter of opinion than legislation, but I don't think the GIRM means that we must NOT have silence while the priest communes. I think that the relevant passage implies that the action known as the "Communion" is when the priest communes, and that suitable music (namely from the Graduale) should be used during the action, which extends from the priest's communion to the cleansing of the vessels. Silence is hardly inappropriate at that point, I would say - whether intentional or unintentional! I always waited until directly after the priest had wiped the chalice after drinking the Blood. Immediately after that I would start music.

Really, Incantu? Nothing special happens when the priest communes? (I'm just kidding, I know what you meant!)

I think we can agree this particular issue is up there with a "pink rather than rose" vestments - yeah maybe preferably the vestments should be closer to red. But yet at the end of the day, a priest who knows the difference between pink and rose is probably a bit more feminine than I'd like to see a priest be.

I admit liturgical ignorance in this, but it seems to me the communion of the priest is distinct from that of the congregation. You can have Mass without the congregation receiving; I'm not sure if you can do it without the priest communion, however. Again, I find this issue to be minutiae and I'd say getting the musicians to commune is a fine reason to wait out the music.

Since the choir, organist and director is a part of the congregation, it's important they receive communion during the Mass. Why are we so
afraid of a few minutes of silence. I think of it as allowing the Mass a little time to breath. (And the STTL is only a guideline).