We have ministers who come up to us after the side chapels have received.

How does that work? Is there a period of silence while the congregation waits for the tabernacle to close? Do you specify how many hosts you'll need before Mass so the tabernacle can close before the minister is back? Trying to fix it at my parish, if you couldn't tell.

At the cathedral, they receive first, except on large feasts, in which case they stay in the loft so they can get more music, and one of the extra clergy or seminarians bring communion up to them, and they all receive in between motets.

On a normal Sunday when they receive downstairs, the organist and one choir member stays up and begins the communion music, which is usually some sort of metrical responsorial-style piece. Then when the choir gets back to the loft, the choir takes over the verses SATB, and the organist and cantor who remained receive from a pyx.

Eons ago, I used to have the choir receive at the beginning of the distribution of the elements, but we weren't upstairs in the loft.

I've seen the Un-necessary Ministers solution, and I don't think it works. If choir isn't a second-class citizen location, why can't the choir receive from the hand of a priest, while kneeling, and on the tongue?

Remember: There is NOTHING which says that there must be music all the time, except the Snakebite Letters.

Resist the temptation to think of the music as "covering" some action. If the music has the right to be sung, it should be sung properly (accurately) and in a manner fitting for the liturgy.

Only a few still kneel for communion in the OF at my parish. They are welcome to if they choose, but few do it. I receive at a very early mass, so I can play while the choir receives after they sing the proper. With steep stairs to the loft, the altar half a block away, and some choir members in their eighties, those ministers are a godsend. Let someone else fall and break bones on those stairs making an unnecessary trip to the altar. My choir members are far too valuable to risk.

What happens at my Episcopal parish:
-the choir goes to Communion first (ahead of the rest of the PIPs), but in the normal "line" while the accompanist inprovises
-the accompanist goes right at the end of communion while the choir (+congregation, hopefully) is beginning the post-communion meditation, which is (almost) always unaccompanied.

What I would do if I worked in a Catholic parish:
-the organist goes to Communion first, while the choir (or a sub-set of it) sings the Proper.
-members of the choir go once either:
--a congregational hymn has taken hold in the congregation
--the organist has started on some improvised music to cover congregational-communion time
--the part of the choir that did not sing the Proper (and so went to communion during that) is back and has started singing a motet (or etc.), while the Proper-singing set goes.


I just realized my preference here is in reverse order to how I wrote it.
(My preference would be for more choral singing. An organ solo would also be fine. I don't think communion is a good time for congregational singing.)

Also, difficulty of getting in and out of the loft should be considered- but I have to imagine that, in the case of EMHCs, one could be dispatched to loft without too much difficulty.

Charles W,

Since those Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion help increase the priesthood crisis, I don't see how they can be a godsend. Furthermore, why would we deprive our choir of the chance to receive Our Lord from the hand of a priest, whose hands were consecrated to touch holy things, from within the sanctuary, proximate to the altar, kneeling? I can think of "reasons" but none of them involve proceding from Catholic thought.

"unnecessary trip to the altar".... speaks volumes.

Adam,

Being blunt: since Episcopalians receive bread and wine, and not the Body and Blood of Christ, does it matter how they receive, or when?


Liam,


Since some silence is prescribed -- no, I don't have the document at hand -- there would be nothing wrong with the choir singing after the members had received. Silence can and should be allowed, if for no other reason than choir members might otherwise get an inflated opinion of themselves.

We go first at SCJ.

Since the question seems predicated on practical issues of moving bodies around, I should say my input is at least as valuable as anyone else's (especially anyone else who isn't singing the Communion Proper, as most aren't).

Precisely.

I appreciate that there are differences in opinion with regard to EMoHCs, but I did not start this topic as a debate or even discussion regarding them. Our Parish happens to use them whether or not I agree with it and it is helpful for me to know how these Ministers facilitate reception of the sacrament at other Parishes.

This has actually given me a leg to stand on when insisting the Proper be sung! I'll be excited to see how this unfolds at my parish.

Yeah, that didn't exactly seem like a realistic description of anyone's POV here.

Adam,

It matters because moving bodies depends on WHY. No one argues that Episcopalians are clueless liturgists -- or, at least, traditionally-minded Anglicans aren't --- but priests are the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, and regularly scheduled extraordinary ministers don't make any sense. (For the benefit of anyone who doesn't know this: legislation requires that they be rare.) It's like staffing a pediatrician's office with a trauma surgeon, or a gastroenterologist.

At my parish:

The choir chants the communio, then a Polish hymn or a motet/anthem, then begin an English hymn, usually after the first verse or two the hymn is pretty well established and the choir go to communion, downstairs, at the end of the 'communion procession'. Since many are elderly, this gives them the option of either coming back upstairs for the closing hymn, or remaining downstairs, and not having to wear out their legs. Occassionally an extraordinary minister brings communion.

The choir used to recieve first, but by the time they got upstairs they were out of breath and I had to wait an extra 5 minutes for them to recuperate.

BTW, since we put the altar-rail in the number of EMHCs in decreasing, though we do still use *one* on Sundays and certain Solemnities when there are many people; however, if there is another priest or a deacon we do not use EMHCs.

cgz-

1. Re-read what I wrote.

2. At the EpiParish I was describing, Communion is delivered at the Sanctuary by clergy, and (when needed) one additional "EMHC" (they call them Lay Eucharistic Ministers) who has been specially trained and commissioned for the role. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

3. My only mention of an EMHC was that, if they are already in use, one could be dispatched to the loft. In either case, the logistics would be the same- leaving the choir to receive in one corner of the loft and leaving the choir to go downstairs and receive at the altar rail are - from the standpoint of musical practicality and interstitial programming - the same.

4. Whatever, dude.

Do Episcopalians always receive only bread and wine? There was a local Episcopalian priest some years ago, who travelled to somewhere in the Middle East, and had himself re-ordained by an Orthodox bishop. Still only bread and wine? Rome has generally accepted the validity of Orthodox orders. Things are not as clear as they were in the days of Leo XIII.

I was discussing the particular situation here. However, I see the EF as the current incarnation (since 1962) of what was once the dominant rite in the Latin Church. That Church, with the authority to do so, reformed and republished its primary rite and the rules for its celebration. I don't look to the EF for guidance, however, since the Church seems to have moved on from there. The EF is no longer dominant, and I don't expect it will ever again be the principal rite of the Latin Church. I realize some are attached to the EF, and am glad it is there for them. That doesn't mean all others are yearning for it to return.

Benedict XVI - Great man! I generally supported his efforts to bring some sense of decorum and order back to the OF, or at least suppress some of the goofiness that had crept into it in actual practice. To what degree that will progress with the current pope is anyone's guess. I have great hopes we won't next have conga lines going to communion. LOL. I see the current papacy as a throwback to the 70s, not a continuation of Benedict's good work. Time will tell and I hope I am wrong about that.

Birkenstocks and black socks

...paired with Bermuda shorts.

I threatened to wear that when going to the mall with my niece. She was horrified that I might actually do it, although I am a great fan of Birkenstocks.

For priests? I am sure the Birkenstocks and black socks - Bermuda shorts, tan of course - are an outward sign of an inward grace.

BKenney,

Since you intend only a practical question, in my current parish the choir receives first. In every parish where I have assisted at Mass and where there was a choir loft the choir receives first.

In the midst of practical details, the question of "what else is going on" comes up. Recently, for example, I sang a requiem. My initial impulse was to sing the Communion Antiphon and then have the unexpected soloist sing afterwards. An Abbe who was singing with the schola that day noted that if Father heard the Communion antiphon, he would immediately proceed, and that if the soloist was to sing, she should therefore sing before the proper antiphon. It worked perfectly.

Could an antiphonal psalm be sung? Perhaps. Could a choral piece be sung? Yes, but not if the choir is climbing the stairs at the same time. Should there be a rush to start the singing? No -- but that's because silence isn't a bad thing, and even having received Holy Communion the choir should be able to have some quiet thanksgiving time. Remember: silence is only an evil in the Snakebite Letters.

Salieri,

Expressions of puzzlement.

Of all the things I have been challenged with, possible heresy over the question of EMHC is a new one.

Once Transubstantiation has occurred (whether in the EF, OF, Anglican Use, or any other rite duly promulgated/approved by the Holy See) the Holy Sacrament subsists no matter where it is reserved, or who administers it.

---- neither did I claim otherwise. The Sacrament subsists as long as the accidents do. There's no issue here.

There isn't more or less Jesus if you recieve from a priest or an especially comissioned layman, it isn't the priest we are recieving, it is Christ.

Two distinct claims here. First: there isn't more or less Jesus. True.
Second: It is Christ, not the priest.

You attempt in the second claim to divide two closely linked realities. Indeed we receive the Sacred Host, which is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. To separate the priest from Christ is to deny an important aspect of the priesthood, or at least to misunderstand it.

When "traditionalists" oppose the spread of EMHCs, it is partly because the EMHC diminishes human awareness of, and appreciation of the uniqueness of the sacrificial priesthood.

Adam,

Whatever these well-meaning people are called within the Anglican communion, they don't administer the Eucharist.


Charles,

Then someone else attached to a previous liturgy of the Latin Church chastises everyone for not following his own anachronistic attachments and preferences. No one should ever feel obligated to follow anything other than the current regulations of the particular rite to which they are joined. If you are joined to the EF, observe EF rules - and please keep them to yourself.

1) No chastisement took place. There is a strongly held conviction on both sides. See # 3 below.
2) They're not "anachronistic", but timeless. Your dislike of them doesn't make them bad, anymore than the liking of these by someone makes them good.
3) I'm not sure what you mean, aside from attempting to make the opinion be muzzled, by "please keep them to yourself". Chonak, please advise?

The use of EMHC's became relevant to this conversation because we were attempting to decide when and how the choir should/could receive. I maintain that the regular, scheduled use of EMHC is illicit, and therefore not a good thing for choirmasters (or mistresses) to encourage.

cgz, you're right to say that bkenney was only asking a practical question, so I think the talk about Episcopalian ordinations, sacramental validity, etc., was a distraction from his topic. He's just looking for examples of what procedures various parishes follow.

Salieri,

I can't see why Chonak would delete the eddy, since it resulted in some clarification of opinion. Then again, I'm not Chonak, so I could be wrong.

Chonak,

Thank you for your speedily recorded observations. I do try to stay on topic, whether I succeed or not. To you, then, I pointedly ask: is the practice of the Episcopal Church relevant to the practice of the Catholic Church, in any matter other than singing?

is the practice of the Episcopal Church relevant to the practice of the Catholic Church, in any matter other than singing?

And why THAT, even? Clearly Episcopalians are not singing a real liturgy. And many of their choir directors have been trained in secular conducting techniques instead of the one, true and holy chironomy of the chant. And they let women sing in their sanctuary choirs. And they let lowly lay WOMEN hand-embroider the cushions on the kneelers of the altar rail! Surely, then, this information is irrelevant.

Wait- which information?

Definition of the word "Extraordinary" in various contexts, according to various caricatures of people...

"Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite"
Trad: "Extrarodinary" means "awesome," as in- isn't that Rite simply extraordinary?!
Prog: "Extraordinary" means "not normal, " as in- there's a normal way of doing things, and this other thing should never ever be done.
Church: "Extraordinary" means "not normal, " as in- there's a normal way of doing things, and this other thing can be done when needed or deemed appropriate by sane people.

"Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion"
Trad: "Extraordinary" means "not normal, " as in- there's a normal way of doing things, and this other thing should never ever be done.
Prog: "Extraordinary" means "awesome," as in- isn't it just extraordinary that all these lay people get to participate in the Mass like that?
Church: "Extraordinary" means "not normal, " as in- there's a normal way of doing things, and this other thing can be done when needed or deemed appropriate by sane people.

Whatever! Original Poster, do what works best for you.

It doesn't help the original poster, who may not be asking about EF practices, to begin with. He didn't say.

Excellent point. I was talking about the Norvus Ordo.