GIRM #86 treats the Communion Rite (within Mass) - and takes normative precedence over Father's dislike:

86. While the priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion chant is begun. Its purpose is to express the communicants' union in spirit by means of the unity of their voices, to show joy of heart, and to highlight more clearly the "communitarian" nature of the procession to receive Communion. The singing is continued for as long as the Sacrament is being administered to the faithful. If, however, there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion chant should be ended in a timely manner.

Care should be taken that singers, too, can receive Communion with ease."

(emphases added)

That would mean it's neither the priest's nor music director's normative authority to prevent or discourage choristers from receiving during Mass (choristers could freely choose to receive after Mass, and should be accommodated if they freely make that choice). Having a deacon able to go to the loft is a great blessing. Silence can remind us that the Mass does not have a constant soundtrack. That said, psalms and canticles with antiphons/responsories are very handy.

The Eucharist should stay in the sanctuary. The organ gallery is a musical workspace. When choristers going down to receive, there can be silence, or organ music. Or they should receive after mass.
GIRM 86 is a flowery bit of dreaming that has little basis in reality or good musical taste. Communion takes 8-10 minutes at my place. What music form can maintain interest for that long?

There are any number of ways to handle it. If you are a Novus Ordo parish, you could have an extraordinary minister bring communion up to your loft.

You could have the choir start down to line up for communion after the Agnus is done while you keep a cantor in the loft to start the antiphon. The choir receives first before the rest of the congregation while the antiphon is sung. When the choir is back, the cantor goes down to receive.

There are surely other ways to do it.

Forgive the long response here...I'm new here and I have a lot to say!!

Short answer @JazzFen - based on the conditions you have outlined, in my opinion the choir should receive after Mass or go down to receive after the Agnus Dei with a minute to catch their breath on returning to the choir loft.

I direct music at two Masses each Sunday, one EF and on NO. In the traditional Mass the choir goes down from the choir gallery immediately after chanting the Agnus Dei so they are the first to receive Communion. When they return to the gallery we begin the Communion motet and the Communion chant. In the NO (which is at a different church) a priest or an EMHC brings the Eucharist to the choir gallery and the choir receive Communion after they sing. My preference is for the first option.


There are, of course, several considerations:

- While the GIRM states that the Communion chant should be begun as the celebrant receives the Eucharist, it is referring (in the ideal, at least) to the "Communion chant" i.e. the proper Communion antiphon for the day. My reading of the relevant section, is that this is the reason why the Communion chant is distinguished from the hymn which may also be sung (i.e. the Communion chant is not an "ordinary" hymn). In most parishes (in my experience) the proper antiphon is rarely sung, so I would ask the question: If the proper antiphon is not being sung at all, is there any obstacle to the choir receiving Communion first?


- The notion of a priest / deacon / EMHC bringing Holy Communion up to the choir in the choir loft seems inappropriate to me. Firstly, GIRM 160 says that the communicants, as a rule, approach in procession - not that the Eucharist is brought out of the sanctuary and to the people or to the choir. In addition to this, choir-loft staircases can often be tricky to navigate, and there is the danger - as I have unfortunately witnessed - of the priest / deacon / EMHC falling and spilling hosts from the ciborium. In addition to this, in a former parish where I worked, an EMHC used to bring Holy Communion up to the gallery - some perfectly mobile people in the pews at the back of the church, knowing that an EMHC would be making their way to the choir gallery, would not approach the sanctuary for Communion, but would stay in their places until the EMHC passed by them...In other words, it cultivated a notion in some people that absolutely nothing is demanded of them when receiving Communion - they didn't even have to leave their pew!


- Another consideration is the age-profile of the choir, particularly if there are mobility issues. It might be difficult enough for some choir members to get up to the choir gallery and back down once, never mind having to do so before or after singing at Communion. If this is a concern, I think receiving Communion after Mass would be better. If choir-members are not relatively fit, there will likely be a lot of huffing and puffing if they are required to sing after returning to the choir gallery.


- Clearly the GIRM shows concern for musicians being able to participate fully in the Mass, and in my experience, the question of when the choir should receive Holy Communion has only every been an issue in the NO. However, it seems to me that the GIRM makes the reception of Communion by the choir logistically difficult (particularly in a big church) if they are expected to chant the Communion antiphon for as long as the Sacrament is being distributed and then go to receive...And the primary reason for this, according to the GIRM 86, is to "express unity" and highlight "the communitarian nature" of the procession to Communion - in fact, unity in silent procession could be said to express the very same thing! The primary reason, of course, for any of our music at Mass, is to glorify God - a far more important consideration than highlighting the "communitarian nature" of a procession.


- A final consideration, and an argument I would make for the choir receiving Communion after Mass (particularly if one is intent on following the GIRM to the letter, no matter how impractical it may be) is this: Choral singing is very demanding, particularly if your parish has a Sung Mass each Sunday - choir members are always looking ahead to what they're going to be singing next. It is my experience that it can be very difficult to enter spiritually into that profound moment of receiving Our Lord when one has to focus on what's coming next on the music-list. If the choir receives first, they often need to begin singing straightaway after returning to the gallery; if they sing first and receive after, they may not feel they have had time to prepare spiritually for Holy Communion. If the choir receives after Mass they are no longer under pressure, will perhaps be better disposed towards receiving the Eucharist, and they will be able to spend as much time as they wish in thanksgiving.

While the GIRM states that the Communion chant should be begun as the celebrant receives the Eucharist, it is referring (in the ideal, at least) to the "Communion chant" i.e. the proper Communion antiphon for the day.

FWIW, that restrictive reading is not what was conveyed or intended - that was clarified back in the wake of the rollout of the revised translation in late 2011, but instead more broadly refers to what is being sung among any the options set forth in GIRM #87.

At my parish the choir and organist go down from the loft right after saying "Oh Lord, I am not worthy..." and are first to receive Communion, right after the priest. This means there is silence for the first few minutes of Communion but that doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone involved. When we get back to the loft, we sing the Communion Antiphon and a hymn.

At San Francisco's Church of the Advent the Communio is a solo chant (iirc preceding a polyphonic motet) and that has been the door to introducing gregorian propers at churches I have worked at since. At St David's the melodies are now familiar enough to be sung by the principal men, with the whole congregation taking up "As it was in the beginning…" If you have a cantor who has received at an earlier Mass (or indeed a non-Catholic) it easily solves the traffic problem.

Well, all things rarely being equal, one has to decide how much inequality is tolerable. I find too that non-Catholics understand instinctually that their role is one of service.

I haven't quite followed your second objection. I have had to discourage would-be cantors who didn't want to contribute to the choral Mass (and couldn't be bothered to learn fluent Psalm recitation). Should such really be encouraged instead?

For EF masses at my parish I have the choir go down after the Agnus Dei and receive first. I think this is technically correct anyway when the choir (schola to be exact) is carrying out a "liturgical function" in St. Pius X's sense. As it happens, the organist has usually already received at an earlier mass, so if solo organ is permissible he plays something meditative until we're back. A bit of silence, then the proper, almost always with verses, then a little more silence, then a second piece starting usually when the priest returns to the altar.