Is the Offertory “Chant” optional during Mass?
  • SponsaChristi
    Posts: 674
    A couple weeks ago I stumbled upon a parish’s web site talking about various liturgical changes they were making during Lent, including having no singing and only silence during the Offertory because singing is optional during the offertory. I was fairly certain that was wrong since the Roman Gradual still has an Offertory Proper, but since it wasn’t my parish, I wasn’t going to worry about it.

    Then come Ash Wednesday at my parish, there was nothing sung, only silence during the Offertory, which seemed odd since our MD is extremely competent when it comes to the liturgical norms for singing, and the Canadian edition of the GIRM specifically states, “ 139. When the Universal Prayer is over, all sit, and the Offertory Chant begins (cf. no. 74).”
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,937
    Imagine thinking that singing is a luxury and a joy to hear... (end purple text)

    Meanwhile I have heard people complaining that Easter chants in the Traditional Graduale don't sound joyful!
  • CatholicZ09
    Posts: 345
    I’ve experienced parishes foregoing an offertory hymn/chant and instead doing some sort of instrumental or observing a period of silence, especially during Lent.

    However, since you brought it up, I found this document from Corpus Christi Watershed that discusses the matter thoroughly: https://archive.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/12/01/03/15-38-48_0.pdf
  • Dixit_Dominus_44
    Posts: 202
    From what I understand, Annib. Bugnini (quite influential in the reform) detested anything having to do with ‘offering’ or ‘sacrifice’ and ended up eradicating all the Offertory prayers, replacing them with 2 short prayers.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,158
    It depends on what the parish usually does. The Church gives us those proper antiphons -- Scripture texts, usually -- for our reflection, just as much as she gives us the texts of the readings. To think that we'd be better off not hearing those words of Scripture is a strange idea for Lent!

    If they usually sing a hymn taken from other sources at the offertory, maybe giving that up could be an opportunity to introduce the real thing, the antiphon: with a setting from "Simple English Propers" or from Fr. Weber's "The Proper of the Mass".

    Thanked by 3ServiamScores tomjaw hilluminar
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,662
    Here is some 30-year old advice from the UK.
    Thanked by 1Roborgelmeister
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,546
    Yes. It's a thing by omission, as it were. Unlike the Entrance and Communion antiphons, the Offertory antiphons are not included in the Roman Missal (which is also why you won't find them in things like missalettes), which means the celebrant priest is not going to be able to recite them (there's no "black" to be said) unless he has another book. https://epriest.com/liturgies/view/2254#
  • SponsaChristi
    Posts: 674
    Here is some 30-year old advice from the UK

    They lost all credibility as soon as I read, “Breaking of Bread”. A) It’s the Fraction rite, and B) it’s not bread.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • francis
    Posts: 11,279
    don't sound joyful!
    I’m done hearing about what is “joyful”.

    Most people think joy is about having warm fuzzies or goose bumps or having someone, ANYONE on the altar or serving the liturgy out to paint a mona lisa smile on their face.

    Give me a friggin break. People have wandered so far from what it means to worship God in the liturgy I don’t know if they’re ever gonna make it back to the real one.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,100
    the liturgical norms for singing, and the Canadian edition of the GIRM specifically states, “ 139. When the Universal Prayer is over, all sit, and the Offertory Chant begins (cf. no. 74).”


    The offertory chant is indeed optional. It may be omitted (and even replaced by playing the organ), but from the rubrics it becomes clear that singing the offertory chant is highly recommended.

    See GIRM 145: ‘If, however, there is no Offertory chant and the organ is not played, in the presentation of the bread and wine the priest may say the formulas of blessing aloud…’ It’s also clear from the Order of Mass 23 and 24: ‘If, however, the Offertory Chant is not sung, the priest may speak these words aloud…’

    And if you go back to GIRM 74, it already becomes somewhat clear that the offertory chant is optional (emphasis mine): ‘…Singing may always accompany the rite at the offertory, even when there is no procession with the gifts.’

    The reason the text of the offertory chant is not in the Roman Missal, is that it accompanies a rite where the priest has to pray the words given in the Order of Mass 23-25 (cf. GIRM 74 and 75): they are simultaneously taking place, at the same time.

    They lost all credibility as soon as I read, “Breaking of Bread”. A) It’s the Fraction rite, and B) it’s not bread.


    No. a) See GIRM 83: ‘The fraction or breaking of bread is begun after the sign of peace…’ In Latin the rite is called ‘fractio panis’. b) The idea of the doctrine of the transubstantiaton is that the eucharistic bread remains bread, but its substance has changed.
    Thanked by 2Roborgelmeister Elmar
  • SponsaChristi
    Posts: 674
    No. a) See GIRM 83: ‘The fraction or breaking of bread is begun after the sign of peace…’ In Latin the rite is called ‘fractio panis’. b) The idea of the doctrine of the transubstantiaton is that the eucharistic bread remains bread, but its substance has changed.

    That’s not what transubstantiation is. The bread does not remain. Its accidents remains (the appearance of bread, it’s taste, and effects remain), but it’s not bread. Its substance completely changes into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

    While this may seem like splitting hairs and semantics, these details matter.

    It’s poorly written and considering the amount of American Catholics who don’t believe in the real presence (70%), it should be better written and not referred to as “bread”.
    Thanked by 2hilluminar ServiamScores
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,100
    it should be better written and not referred to as “bread”.


    But the GIRM, even in Latin, does exactly that. One can’t blame someone for using the official language of the Church.

    But anyway, this discussion is about the offertory chant…
    Thanked by 3Liam Roborgelmeister Elmar
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 396
    it should be better written and not referred to as “bread”

    1 Corinthians 10:16?
  • SponsaChristi
    Posts: 674
    1 Corinthians 10:16?

    The Bible predates the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which gets into the nitty gritty about accidents of bread (wine), etc. but St. Paul understood it to be the BBS&D of Christ.


    Thanked by 1francis
  • francis
    Posts: 11,279
    It’s never bread in the old rite; it is always Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity. But it unfortunately sometimes remains “bread only” in the new rite. I call them the cracker makers. Watched it numerous times in my previous posts.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,100
    CCC 1329, 1377, 1390, 1392 then maybe? The point is, that referring to the consecrated host as ‘bread’ is something the Church itself does in its rites and in its teachings, while at the same time it doesn’t back down on the doctrine of the transubstantiation. Using the language of the Church cannot make someone lose all credibility.
    Thanked by 5CHGiffen a_f_hawkins Elmar Liam IanW
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,158
    The Holy Mass has numerous texts in which the Holy Eucharist, consecrated, is still referred to using the word "bread":

    After the consecration:
    Hóstiam ✠ puram, Hóstiam ✠ sanctam, Hóstiam ✠ immaculátam,
    Panem ✠ sanctum vitæ ætérnæ, et Cálicem ✠ salútis perpétuæ;


    At the priest's reception of the Sacrament:
    Panem cœléstem accípiam ...


    St. Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11):
    Quotiescúmque enim manducábitis panem hunc et cálicem bibétis:


    So using those expressions is just fine.

    When speaking of transubstantiation in particular, it's easy to state details unclearly, so it's helpful to check church sources on this important topic. The Council of Trent said this:

    But since Christ, our Redeemer, has said that that is truly His own body which He offered under the species of bread (cf. Mt 26,26 ff.; Mc 14,22 ff.; Lc 22,19 ff.; 1Co 11,23 ff.), it has always been a matter of conviction in the Church of God, and now this holy Synod declares it again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a conversion takes place of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This conversion is appropriately and properly called transubstantiation by the Catholic Church.
    [source: https://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dxa.htm#b3f ;
    from the Denzinger-Schönmetzer handbook of historical church documents, etc., as found on the Dicastery for the Clergy website]



    OK? But let's get back to the Offertory chant, if there's any more to say.
    Thanked by 2Liam a_f_hawkins
Add a Comment