Is a priest introducing each reading licit?

[Wesrock]

I went to an evening mass at a church I don’t usually go to, and before each of the first reading, psalm, and second reading, the priest stood up and gave an introduction to them. It was only half a minute or so each time. He mainly provided context for the reading, a little on the date, audience, issues of the time, and brief reflection on today. In the homily he expounded on some of this in more detail.

None of the commentary was unorthodox interpretation. Part of me liked this mini bible study, but is uncertain about its place in the mass. Has anyone seen this before? Is it allowed within the normal form of the liturgy?

 

[z_0101]

It’s a slight stretch to do this before each reading…

From the USCCB website - Lector
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-word/the-lector-at-mass.cfm
The Liturgy of the Word

After the Collect, all sit. **The Priest may, very briefly, introduce the faithful to the Liturgy of the Word. **Then the reader goes to the ambo and, from the Lectionary already placed there before Mass, proclaims the First Reading, to which all listen. At the end, the reader pronounces the acclamation The word of the Lord, and all reply, Thanks be to God.

Then a few moments of silence may be observed, if appropriate, so that all may meditate on what they have heard.

Then the psalmist or the reader proclaims the verses of the Psalm and the people make the response as usual.

If there is to be a Second Reading before the Gospel, the reader proclaims it from the ambo. All listen and at the end reply to the acclamation, as noted above (no. 128). Then, if appropriate, a few moments of silence may be observed. (GIRM, nos. 128-130)

GIRM-105-B (and other related sections): However, that’s a long reach.

(( USCCB - General Instruction of the Roman Missal ))

(( Vatican.va - General Instruction of the Roman Missal ))

 

[Digitonomy]

I don’t think it would violate the GIRM for the priest to assume the role of commentator.

1. A liturgical function is also exercised by:

b) 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.

 

[John_Lilburne]

My interpretation of the liturgical books is that there can be an introduction before each reading.

General Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass: “15. There may be concise introductions before the readings, especially the first.” Having “especially the first” is not the same as “only the first”.

The Latin for this is: “15 Monitiones breves concinnaeque in verbi liturgia ante lectiones, praesertim primam haberi possunt.”

General Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass: “42. The one presiding is responsible for preparing the faithful for the liturgy of the word on occasion by means of introductions before the readings.”

The Latin for this is: “42. Ad praesidem pertinet aliquando monitionibus introducere fideles in verbi liturgiam antequam lectiones proclamentur.”

Here “liturgy of the word” is singular. But “readings” and “introductions” is plural. So this also conveys that there can be an introduction before each reading.

However the Lectionary gives a different impression to the other liturgical books.

The General Introduction of the Roman Missal has in n. 31 about the introductions by the Priest: “to the Liturgy of the Word (before the readings),”

The Order of Mass part of the Roman Missal does not mention and introduction or introductions. But this is understandable since they are optional and the Order of Mass is brief in its description. The Order of Mass does specifically mention the introduction to the Mass: “3. The Priest, or a Deacon, or another minister, may very briefly introduce the faithful to the Mass of the day.”

The Ceremonial of Bishops does not mention the introductions in its description of the Stational Mass of the Diocesan Bishop. It has: “137 After the opening prayer, the reader goes to the ambo and proclaims the first reading, as all sit and listen.” It does have in n. 132: “The bishop himself, a deacon, or one of the concelebrants may very briefly introduce the faithful to the Mass of the day.”

Another part of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:

“128. After the Collect, all sit. The Priest may, very briefly, introduce the faithful to the Liturgy of the Word. Then the reader goes to the ambo …”.

 

[Gertabelle]

I went to an evening mass at a church I don’t usually go to, and before each of the first reading, psalm, and second reading, the priest stood up and gave an introduction to them. It was only half a minute or so each time. He mainly provided context for the reading, a little on the date, audience, issues of the time, and brief reflection on today. In the homily he expounded on some of this in more detail.

None of the commentary was unorthodox interpretation. Part of me liked this mini bible study, but is uncertain about its place in the mass. Has anyone seen this before? Is it allowed within the normal form of the liturgy?

Our pastor does this at every mass. He keeps it short, and it does help prepare my mind to hear the readings.

 

[pianistclare]

He’s a priest.Trust him.

 

[Mintaka]

It’s overly didactic and reduces the solemnity of Mass, especially since it makes Father or the reader sound like a Missalette; it assumes that the congregation can’t wait until the homily to have the reading explained; and it assumes that the priest or deacon or reader is incapable of reading in a way that can be understood. But - it certainly is permitted in the Ordinary Form.

Of course, the default “normal” method of the Church through the centuries is to chant the readings on the designated chant tones, and we pretty much never get that in the Ordinary Form or even the Extraordinary.

So… yeah. It’s amazing how people usually pick the less solemn, more dumbed down options.

(If your priest does it in a useful way, I congratulate him and you; because honestly, I can’t say that I’ve ever heard it work well. But I suppose it wouldn’t have been made an option if somebody somewhere wasn’t able to make it work.)

 

[Neofight]

It’s overly didactic and reduces the solemnity of Mass, especially since it makes Father or the reader sound like a Missalette; it assumes that the congregation can’t wait until the homily to have the reading explained; and it assumes that the priest or deacon or reader is incapable of reading in a way that can be understood. But - it certainly is permitted in the Ordinary Form.

Of course, the default “normal” method of the Church through the centuries is to chant the readings on the designated chant tones, and we pretty much never get that in the Ordinary Form or even the Extraordinary.

So… yeah. It’s amazing how people usually pick the less solemn, more dumbed down options.

(If your priest does it in a useful way, I congratulate him and you; because honestly, I can’t say that I’ve ever heard it work well. But I suppose it wouldn’t have been made an option if somebody somewhere wasn’t able to make it work.)

As long as it’s not an obvious breech of GIRM , I prefer to focus on the function of the Sacrifice of the Mass rather than my personal likes or dislikes of the form or mechanics of the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s overly didactic and reduces the solemnity of Mass, especially since it makes Father or the reader sound like a Missalette; it assumes that the congregation can’t wait until the homily to have the reading explained; and it assumes that the priest or deacon or reader is incapable of reading in a way that can be understood. But - it certainly is permitted in the Ordinary Form.

Of course, the default “normal” method of the Church through the centuries is to chant the readings on the designated chant tones, and we pretty much never get that in the Ordinary Form or even the Extraordinary.

So… yeah. It’s amazing how people usually pick the less solemn, more dumbed down options.

(If your priest does it in a useful way, I congratulate him and you; because honestly, I can’t say that I’ve ever heard it work well. But I suppose it wouldn’t have been made an option if somebody somewhere wasn’t able to make it work.)

Actually the Council of Trent encouraged explanations of the Mass (and I take it the readings as well). Of course, that was when the Mass was in Latin. But I agree with you that it serves to “dumb down” the liturgy, especially when it’s in vernacular already.

 

[pianistclare]

Unless he feels that his particular congregation really needs the explanations.
That’s always a possibility.

 

[CB_Catholic]

How could a brief introduction to the readings “dumb down” the Liturgy? Most Catholics are not that familiar with Scripture, don’t read their Bibles, and would actually learn something about Sacred Scripture, rather than just listen to a passage they don’t really understand. n They actually are being elevated spiritually.

What exactly is a “dumbed down” Liturgy anyway? One in which people actually understand what is going on and learn from and can carry on to their every day life? Or is it just a phrase to throw around to show that one is a little more sophisticated than your average Joe pew Catholic- the ones that Jesus considered at the salt and light of the earth.

I am not being sarcastic or facetious. I would truly like to know what is so offensive about this, that it “dumbs down” the liturgy. After all, Jesus went to great lengths to bring the Word of God to people in a way they could understand, in their own language, using their every day humble lives to illustrate things. I very much doubt He is offended.

 

[MissRose73]

Our pastoral admin (a sister) will read a bit of commentary before the 1st and 2nd readings but does not do so for the gospel. She is at every Mass, and if she is not there then it is not done.

 

[ProVobis]

I am not being sarcastic or facetious. I would truly like to know what is so offensive about this, that it “dumbs down” the liturgy.

In that spirit I’ll try to explain. The concept is actually taught in Business Writing courses. It can be measured by what is called the “fog index,” where among other things words like consubstantial would tend to make the index higher while monosyllabic words would lower it. There’s a fine balance to be maintained. While you may make things easier to understand for 3rd graders, for example, you may insult a lot of intelligences along the way.

Accuracies of translations into English are another matter, and have already been done for the most part. The bishops seem to be clear on that.

 

[CB_Catholic]

In that spirit I’ll try to explain. The concept is actually taught in Business Writing courses. It can be measured by what is called the “fog index,” where among other things words like consubstantial would tend to make the index higher while monosyllabic words would lower it. There’s a fine balance to be maintained. While you may make things easier to understand for 3rd graders, for example, you may insult a lot of intelligences along the way.

Accuracies of translations into English are another matter, and have already been done for the most part. The bishops seem to be clear on that.

I understand this because I have a BA in English and have written many, many papers. I will use the words I need to improve the quality of the writing and also to impress my teachers.

But this is not about writing Encyclicals or theological dissertations. This is about the greatest teaching tool the Church has–the Liturgy. And the reason Christ was so effective in His teaching is because he taught at the level of the ordinary person. It is not “dumbing down” the Liturgy to briefly explain Scripture passages to the congregation. If someone feels his intelligence is being insulted at Mass, I would suggest that person perhaps needs a lesson in humility. Mass is not the place to look for an ego boost.

 

[Lorelael]

I love how our priest gives a little Bible history before the Liturgy of the Word. He explains who some of the letters were written to, some of the customs back then, etc. He tells us to put this in our minds while we listen to the readings so that we can get more out of them. It is amazing how much more I understand the readings when he does this.

 

[InThePew]

He’s a priest.Trust him.

This. Just because something which is done at mass is a bit different or not commonplace doesn’t mean that there’s anything wrong with it. The mass, by its nature, requires active participation by both the priest and faithful and so this means that there will sometimes be variations or adaptations according to particular circumstances. Of course that’s not to say that there aren’t core elements of the mass which don’t change but, beyond this, there is always going to be some variation.

 

[fred_conty]

It seems to be optional. And I suggest that the priest would do it when the reading would be made more understandable by a brief commentary. When the reading is rather clear, then what is the need?

 

[Gertabelle]

It seems to be optional. And I suggest that the priest would do it when the reading would be made more understandable by a brief commentary. When the reading is rather clear, then what is the need?

Our pastor doesn’t explain the reading in his introduction.

Rather, he gives us the historical setting for the reading. He may or may not expand upon this in his sermon, but I have always found his brief introduction very helpful in focusing my mind on the first two readings.

 

[ProVobis]

I understand this because I have a BA in English and have written many, many papers. I will use the words I need to improve the quality of the writing and also to impress my teachers.

But this is not about writing Encyclicals or theological dissertations. This is about the greatest teaching tool the Church has–the Liturgy. And the reason Christ was so effective in His teaching is because he taught at the level of the ordinary person. It is not “dumbing down” the Liturgy to briefly explain Scripture passages to the congregation. If someone feels his intelligence is being insulted at Mass, I would suggest that person perhaps needs a lesson in humility. Mass is not the place to look for an ego boost.

Fair enough, but why did the bishops go to the trouble in producing a new translation if it needs to be explained anyway?

BTW, since you are an English scholar, what grade level would you say the current translation(s) of the readings are?

 

[CB_Catholic]

Fair enough, but why did the bishops go to the trouble in producing a new translation if it needs to be explained anyway?

BTW, since you are an English scholar, what grade level would you say the current translation(s) of the readings are?

Well, in the first place, language is fluid, not static. It changes over time. We can see that by noting the differences in Shakespeare’s English and modern English. The Bible has always gone through revisions and translations as new knowledge develops in the sciences such as new discoveries in archeology and linguistics.

I don’t really know what level was intended when the NAB was translated. My guess would be 7th or 8th grade. My granddaughter has no trouble reading the NAB at the age of 13. But how much she comprehends without explanation, I don’t know. She’s always asking questions. I think the NAB is the easiest translations for Americans to understand. That’s just my opinion, though.