Commentator "thanking" the priest after the final blessing

[Edmundus1581]

Our parish has been using a “commentator” for many years.

Sadly, the role has come to involve unneccessary additions to the words of the Mass. There are several additions which are clearly a minor liturgical abuse, and I intend to raise them with our parish. For instance, preceeding the Gospel acclamation with “Please stand to welcome the gospel”.

There is one addition which I personally don’t like, but I am wondering if it can be considered an “abuse”. This is the practice of saying after the final blessing “Thankyou Fr for celebrating the eucharist for us”, and then introducing the final hymn.

To me, anything arbitrarily added to words of the Mass is suspect, and may involve a theological or liturgical error. I suspect such is the case here. For instance, is the priest to be “thanked” for offering the sacrifice of the Mass in-persona-Christi?

Is this worth raising, along with other more clear abuses in the commentator’s role?

The more I puzzle over these things, the more I agree with…

wdtprs.com/images/BLOG/BR_transparent_for%20white_200_PNG.png

 

[z_0101]

this is something you should discuss, in a charitable manner, with the Pastor first.
Make an appoint, have a list of specific items, and approach the Pastor in a not accusatory way… “Fr, there are a few things occurring recently in the Mass that I don’t understand… can you help me?”

see what happens.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

You think that “Please stand to welcome the Gospel,” and "“Thank you, Father” are liturgical abuse?

 

[Digitonomy]

Certainly abuses at mass are common, but I think in most cases they are fairly minor and not worth getting too worked up over. In this case, however, I don’t think what you have described could even be described as abuses.

Our parish has been using a “commentator” for many years.
Sadly, the role has come to involve unneccessary additions to the words of the Mass.

What additions are necessary is a matter of opinion. Since you find the commentator himself unnecessary, you are likely to find most of what he says to be unnecessary. However, for whatever reason the pastor has decided differently.
Edmundus:

For instance, preceeding the Gospel acclamation with “Please stand to welcome the gospel”.

This sounds like exactly the sort of exhortation envisioned in the GIRM: “provides the faithful briefly with explanations and exhortations so as to direct their attention to the celebration”

Edmundus1581:

There is one addition which I personally don’t like, but I am wondering if it can be considered an “abuse”. This is the practice of saying after the final blessing “Thankyou Fr for celebrating the eucharist for us”, and then introducing the final hymn.

Strictly speaking, the mass is over at this point, so it would be a stretch for it to call it an abuse even if it were offensive.

Edmundus1581:

To me, anything arbitrarily added to words of the Mass is suspect, and may involve a theological or liturgical error. I suspect such is the case here. For instance, is the priest to be “thanked” for offering the sacrifice of the Mass in-persona-Christi?

Christ doesn’t just show up by himself in the sacred species, it takes a priest to perform the consecration. He could have just stayed in the rectory and watched Netflix. While it may be a little folksy for my taste, there is nothing wrong with thanking the priest for doing his job.

 

[BartholomewB]

While it may be a little folksy for my taste, there is nothing wrong with thanking the priest for doing his job.

Presumably the commentator is there, doing his commentating, because the priest wants him to do that. So one day the priest told him about this great new idea he’d had, for something extra for the commentator to say. “At the end of the mass, I think it would be nice if the people all thanked me for what I’ve done. I think I deserve that. So please tell them to do that, will you? That’s all, you may go now. Don’t forget what I told you.”

 

[phil19034]

Presumably the commentator is there, doing his commentating, because the priest wants him to do that. So one day the priest told him about this great new idea he’d had, for something extra for the commentator to say. “At the end of the mass, I think it would be nice if the people all thanked me for what I’ve done. I think I deserve that. So please tell them to do that, will you? That’s all, you may go now. Don’t forget what I told you.”

I don’t know. I think there are some additions which are the idea of priests, however, I strongly believe that most are added by the lay commentators or the lay liturgical committees and the pastor chooses “to let it go.”

 

[Digitonomy]

Presumably the commentator is there, doing his commentating, because the priest wants him to do that. So one day the priest told him about this great new idea he’d had, for something extra for the commentator to say. “At the end of the mass, I think it would be nice if the people all thanked me for what I’ve done. I think I deserve that. So please tell them to do that, will you? That’s all, you may go now. Don’t forget what I told you.”

Seems unlikely. I assume the commentator has some flexibility to ad lib as he thinks appropriate. E.g. warning people about the electrical cord they have to step over at communion, explaining the bishop’s ban on shaking hands at the sign of peace, thanking the participants (congregation, organist, altar boys, priest).

 

[Edmundus1581]

Thankyou for the responses. I don’t have time to properly answer right now. Apologies.

You think that “Please stand to welcome the Gospel,” and "“Thank you, Father” are liturgical abuse?

The first, yes. The second is the subject of this post - it’s a question, not an assertion.

Seems unlikely. I assume the commentator has some flexibility to ad lib as he thinks appropriate. E.g. warning people about the electrical cord they have to step over at communion, explaining the bishop’s ban on shaking hands at the sign of peace, thanking the participants (congregation, organist, altar boys, priest).

Thankyou for providing the original reference in the GIRM to the commentator’s role. It would seem that “ad-libbing” is not part of it.

The commentator, who, if appropriate, provides the faithful briefly with explanations and exhortations so as to direct their attention to the
celebration and ensure that they are better disposed for understanding it.** The commentator’s remarks should be thoroughly prepared and notable for their restraint.** In performing this function the commentator stands in a suitable place within sight of the faithful, but not at the ambo.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-3.cfm

In my parish, both the additions I have referred to are just a practice which has emerged without direct approval by either a priest or committee. They have emerged, and yet have also become entrenched, to the point that a commentator is not free to not add these things. They are certainly not “thoroughly prepared” and are not on the commentator’s sheet - yet, when I was commentating and I omitted them, I was criticised.

 

[SyroMalankara]

It’s probably unnecessary, unless you are in an area where a lot of non-Catholics may wander in or something similar.

Thanking the priest, is nice, but also unnecessary at that point - I guess it can be done with the announcements, especially if it’s a guest priest doing the parish a favor.

In a way, thanking the regular priest, while it seems ok, also excludes all the other people not thanked - musician, cantor, congregation, Jesus for becoming present, the Saints for interceding, God the Father for accepting the priest’s sacrifice and ours… etc, etc.

 

[baliano]

I know my opinion are generally not appreciated but all this “commentator” stuff is to me more intrusion into the Liturgy by the laity. We don’t need this stuff. If the congregation that ignorant of the proceedings within the Mass, provide them with Mass booklets. It’s becoming more and more difficult to concentrate on the Mass with all the amplified intrusions by commentators and choir leaders, I have to turn my hearing aids off so I can pray at some Masses.

 

[Edmundus1581]

this is something you should discuss, in a charitable manner, with the Pastor first.
Make an appoint, have a list of specific items, and approach the Pastor in a not accusatory way… “Fr, there are a few things occurring recently in the Mass that I don’t understand… can you help me?”

see what happens.

This has been happening for many years - long before the current priests, and the priests who preceded them.

I have been on the Liturgy Committee since 2010 and first raised the issue back then, and my question was quite rudely dismissed.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You think that “Please stand to welcome the Gospel,” and "“Thank you, Father” are liturgical abuse?

As to the first, yes, It is a liturgical “abuse”
A very very minor one. And no doubt well meaning and lacking in any sort of defiant attitude.
The Church has a formula to follow for Mass, She has rules and believe it or not, a way of introducing the Gospel that is not in need of refinement. To go beyond what the Church prescribes is wrong. And thought it may be to direct a large non Catholic population to participate in the various postures (standing) it is not prescribed or needed. One Church that follows the proper form of Mass is not to be improved upon by Mass at another Church in the name of becoming more polite or welcoming. It would annoy me. I am not sure I would bring it to the level of the OP. Unless it annoyed me week after week and time after time so that I was distracted from the Gospel or the purpose of the Mass. Then, perhaps it would rise to the level of feeling I needed to address it.

As to the second. This is indeed an interesting question. Technically the Mass has ended. The “Closing Hymn” is not part of the Mass. The Mass ends with the “send forth” and the final Blessing.
BUT there have been plenty of threads on CAF discussing closing hymns and things that are done AFTER the Mass has ended. There is Church direction (I don’t have the citation in front of me at the moment) that silence is to be observed as people exit the Church. And there is debate on if this is a “liturgical” matter at all. I believe it is.
Though the second thing may not be an actual abuse.

The OP has the sig of a saying of a popular blogging priest who sometimes answers these types of questions.
Fr. Z. It would be interesting if he took up this question. Though anyone who has read him could probably guess as to how he would answer it.

Given that there are many “high fives” and handshakes with the priest after Mass in many parishes, I would say the aspiring ESPN commentator is just following suit. Though if it were followed by applause that could be a whole other thread.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I am also haunted by the next step. Perhaps a Post Mass interview with Father, evaluating his performance.

Commentator: Gee Father, How does it feel, that was amazing, you consecrated so smoothly and under so much pressure! This has to feel good right, tell us, what is your plan now?

Father: Oh man! First, I want to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, without Him none of this would be possible… Also, to my altar boys they are truly in the trenches. Dave, his lecturing was incredible and you can tell he practiced all week long. And finally, when I needed help and was innundated with the gigantic mass of people coming up to me, my backups my EMHCs really stepped in and I owe them a big steak dinner. This is not my win, it was a team win!

 

[Digitonomy]

As to the first, yes, It is a liturgical “abuse” …To go beyond what the Church prescribes is wrong.

I don’t see how “Please stand to welcome the Gospel” is beyond what the Church has prescribed in directing the commentator to provide “exhortations so as to direct their attention to the celebration.”

 

[Elizium23]

Can someone explain why it is abuse for the commentator to say “Please stand to welcome the Gospel”? It seems to me a perfectly ordinary instruction to the faithful to stand up. It seems that, if you are going to have a commentator, that this is exactly the sort of thing he should say, to assist large numbers of non-Catholic visitors, newly baptized, or others who do not know all the rubrics. What exactly is the abuse?

 

[Edmundus1581]

Can someone explain why it is abuse for the commentator to say “Please stand to welcome the Gospel”?

In posting I took it for granted that this is clearly a liturgical abuse. I called it “minor” - but I only mean that by comparison with more serious abuses we sometimes hear of.

It was not my purpose to have a discussion about this, but as my assumption has been questioned or rejected several times, I will attempt to follow up on it.

I will attempt to follow up in the next couple of days.

My original primary subject of “thanking” the priest seems less important than this one.

In the meantime, I contribute this article from Zenit.

A Commentator’s Role

 

[fastenatingguy]

I am also haunted by the next step. Perhaps a Post Mass interview with Father, evaluating his performance.

Commentator: Gee Father, How does it feel, that was amazing, you consecrated so smoothly and under so much pressure! This has to feel good right, tell us, what is your plan now?

Father: Oh man! First, I want to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, without Him none of this would be possible… Also, to my altar boys they are truly in the trenches. Dave, his lecturing was incredible and you can tell he practiced all week long. And finally, when I needed help and was innundated with the gigantic mass of people coming up to me, my backups my EMHCs really stepped in and I owe them a big steak dinner. This is not my win, it was a team win!

I laughed…but could have cried.

 

[z_0101]

This has been happening for many years - long before the current priests, and the priests who preceded them.

I have been on the Liturgy Committee since 2010 and first raised the issue back then, and my question was quite rudely dismissed.

By pass the committee - sometimes they get full of power-hungry grumps that think that they are in charge.

I’ll give you an example, at my Parish we haven’t rang the bells at the presentation of either the Body of Christ nor the Precious Blood after consecration for over 25+ years despite the fact that two of the Deacons bought, with their own funds, a very nice set of bells for such use and the handbells for Lent. We have a new Pastor and over the objections of the liturgy committee, we are now ringing the bells!

It is not the liturgy committee that has the final say, it’s not the Parish/Pastoral-Council’s say - it is the Pastor’s office, right, and duty to establish the Mass within the rubrics as given within the GIRM.

If the Pastor wants, he can simply make the change… and that’s a final act on his part not subject to discussion. In fact, a some time ago a Priest in our diocese “cleaned house” when he took over parish… tossed all of the rectory staff, the councils, all but the Deacons… turns out before he took over he asked for a full financial audit of the Parish and these people were not handling the money very well… and now they don’t handle the money at all and new people are in charge of the liturgy committee and councils.

Sometimes, all it takes for a Pastor is to have someone in his corner. Good or Bad priest (and I’ve only had good ones thus far), I’ve tried to be in our Pastor’s corner… they need a friend and they need our support.

 

[BartholomewB]

In the meantime, I contribute this article from Zenit.

A Commentator’s Role

“Theatrical and distracting” are Fr. McNamara’s words in that link for one small part of the commentator’s performance, but I think they would apply equally to a large part of the antics that some commentators get up to. Some priests clearly need to be more assertive and put the commentators in their place.

 

[John_Lilburne]

From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, n. 43: “With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon,** lay minister**, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal.”

So I do not see how the commentator directing people to stand can be considered a liturgical abuse. The commentator is following something that the Roman Missal envisages as happening.

“105. The following also exercise a liturgical role: … b. The commentator, who provides the faithful, when appropriate, with brief explanations and commentaries with the purpose of introducing them to the celebration and preparing them to understand it better. The commentator’s remarks must be meticulously prepared and clear though brief. In performing this role the commentator stands in an appropriate place facing the faithful, but not at the ambo.”