M
MyJesuitSon
Guest
Our choir started last Easter to sing the Alleluia before and after the Gospel. It is confusing to most a parishioner and new comers I thought the Alleluia was to announce the Word of the Lord.
Is is liturgically correct to sing the Alleluia after the Gospel is read
- Status
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Wow. That’s a good one. My instinct is to say a resounding “no” (and no doubt many will respond likewise).
However, let’s look at that a little further…
The priest is given considerable license in the Homily. He may incorporate questions and responses from the congregation (I say he may do so). I suppose he could incorporate a brief moment of appropriate singing into the homily.
If the priest considers that to be a part of his homily, I don’t think anyone (save the bishop) could deny him that.
What I’m saying is that it would not be a licit thing to do, but if the priest found himself forced to justify doing it and made the claim that it was a part of his homily, it would be difficult to prove otherwise.
Most interresting.
M
MusicMan
Guest
I have witnessed this oddity before as well, and the rationale for doing it was explained to me. Alas, my memory escapes me and I cannot recall what the rationale was. Thus, it probably wasn’t that strong of an argument.
J
John_Lilburne
Guest
Clearly wrong, someone deciding we won’t “say the black, do the red”. An extract from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal that highlights how inappropriate this is.
“Silence
45. Sacred silence also, as part of the celebration, is to be observed at the designated times. Its purpose, however, depends on the time it occurs in each part of the celebration. Thus within
the Act of Penitence and again after the invitation to pray, all recollect themselves; but at the conclusion of a reading or the homily, all meditate briefly on what they have heard; …”.
“Silence
45. Sacred silence also, as part of the celebration, is to be observed at the designated times. Its purpose, however, depends on the time it occurs in each part of the celebration. Thus within
the Act of Penitence and again after the invitation to pray, all recollect themselves; but at the conclusion of a reading or the homily, all meditate briefly on what they have heard; …”.
P
Phemie
Guest
Not that I’m a proponent of this practice but for what it’s worth, there’s no silence after the Gospel, there’s a homily. Singing an Alleluia immediately after “Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ” doesn’t affect that in any way.
M
MyJesuitSon
Guest
There is a specific intention for each part of the liturgy. The Alleluia announces in this manner “hear ye, hear ye, now comes the sacred word of the Gospel of our Lord”. To say it after the Gospel is not only liturgically inappropriate but its illogical. I would compare that to saying the Great Amen before the Eucharistic prayer.
M
MusicMan
Guest
Ah yes, my memory returns… the purpose to singing the Alleluia after the Gospel is to celebrate the joy of the word of the Risen Christ by book-ending the Gospel with the joyous Alleluias.
M
MyJesuitSon
Guest
Any other liberties we should take? Why not bookend the Gloria with the 2nd reading? How about the Agnus Dei before and after communion?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I believe he was being sarcastic. (and yes, I believe you were too!)
M
MusicMan
Guest
Hey, you wanted an explanation. I gave one. I never said I agreed with the practice.
M
MyJesuitSon
Guest
I have no quarrel with you. I was being sarcastic, but honestly if perhaps during Easter we accepted this practice why is it being done throughout Ordinary time? Who arbitrarily determines when we are to add that little touch to make the Mass even more special? Is it the music director?
M
MusicMan
Guest
First off, I think the practice is absurd. Second off, I get the rationale behind it (because every Sunday is Easter Sunday), but I think the practice is absurd.
While I concede that things can be done to enhance worship during different seasons or times of the year, the rubrics of the Mass must take precedence over these ideas. All too often, however, a person or group within the ministries of the parish comes up with one of these absurdities, and rather than stop them (especially in the case of parish musicians), Father lets them get away with a little thing out of fear that correction will cause this musician to quit, and then who would play for Mass, direct the choir, lead the singing, etc.
In the grand scheme of things, this illicit practice is a “little thing,” so Father gives on it so as not to rock the boat.
Doesn’t make it right, just makes it what it is.
While I concede that things can be done to enhance worship during different seasons or times of the year, the rubrics of the Mass must take precedence over these ideas. All too often, however, a person or group within the ministries of the parish comes up with one of these absurdities, and rather than stop them (especially in the case of parish musicians), Father lets them get away with a little thing out of fear that correction will cause this musician to quit, and then who would play for Mass, direct the choir, lead the singing, etc.
In the grand scheme of things, this illicit practice is a “little thing,” so Father gives on it so as not to rock the boat.
Doesn’t make it right, just makes it what it is.
M
MyJesuitSon
Guest
Well said!
B
benedictgal
Guest
Now, I wade into this very carefully because I can’t find anything in the norms, but, I’ll take a stab at it anyway.
The only precedent that I can think of regarding this issue is the Papal Mass. Now, I haven’t been to one in person; I’ve only seen the feeds from EWTN. The double-alleluia, for lack of a better term, is used at the Vatican for special occasions, such as the Installation Mass of Pope Benedict XVI, Easter, Pentecost and the Solemnity of the Body of Blood of Christ, as well as the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul. The double alleluia has also been used for special liturgies such as ordinations and canonizations.
Furthermore, we must bear in mind, at least as far as the Papal liturgical celebrations are concerned, that when the double alleluia is used, it comes into play to accompany the procession of the Book of the Gospels from the ambo back to the Holy Father, who, in turn, after reverencing it, blesses the faithful with the Book of the Gospels. That is certainly a logical reason for this double alleluia.
The only precedent that I can think of regarding this issue is the Papal Mass. Now, I haven’t been to one in person; I’ve only seen the feeds from EWTN. The double-alleluia, for lack of a better term, is used at the Vatican for special occasions, such as the Installation Mass of Pope Benedict XVI, Easter, Pentecost and the Solemnity of the Body of Blood of Christ, as well as the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul. The double alleluia has also been used for special liturgies such as ordinations and canonizations.
Furthermore, we must bear in mind, at least as far as the Papal liturgical celebrations are concerned, that when the double alleluia is used, it comes into play to accompany the procession of the Book of the Gospels from the ambo back to the Holy Father, who, in turn, after reverencing it, blesses the faithful with the Book of the Gospels. That is certainly a logical reason for this double alleluia.
B
benedictgal
Guest
This is the only specific reference that I could find regarding the Gospel Acclamation:
I suspect that the scenario the OP reported may have been the parish’s copying something from a Papal Mass.
This comes from the General Introduction to the Lectionary. Note that it only covers what is done before the proclamation of the Gospel, not after.
I suspect that the scenario the OP reported may have been the parish’s copying something from a Papal Mass.
M
MusicMan
Guest
After reviewing the GIRM, it would seem to me that due to a time factor in the distance the Deacon will be traveling from the ambo to the Holy Father and for the Holy Father’s blessing with the Gospel book, that some musical interlude might be advisable. The rubrics are silent on this as an option, however. Regardless, should such a musical interlude be advised, a second chanting of the Alleluia makes the most liturgical sense.
However, in normal parish life, where the deacon returning the book to the priest to bless the people with is not an option accorded by the rubrics, such an interlude would be unnecessary. The “storage” of the Gospel book following the proclamation of the Gospel is not mandated by the GIRM, although there is an option discussed, so realistically, the only “silent” time between Gospel and Homily would occur if the deacon is not also the Homilist. Such silent time would be short that it would be more advisable to keep the silence so that the congregation could meditate on the Word.
Certainly the Holy Father’s and his MC have the knowledge to make this deviation for a Papal Liturgy, but a regular parish would not have the authority to do so.
That said, were the Bishop celebrating Mass and exercising his option to bless the faithful with the book, one might consider a second recitation of the Alleluia following the Gospel, especially if directed to do so by the Bishop or the Diocesesan Liturgist.
However, in normal parish life, where the deacon returning the book to the priest to bless the people with is not an option accorded by the rubrics, such an interlude would be unnecessary. The “storage” of the Gospel book following the proclamation of the Gospel is not mandated by the GIRM, although there is an option discussed, so realistically, the only “silent” time between Gospel and Homily would occur if the deacon is not also the Homilist. Such silent time would be short that it would be more advisable to keep the silence so that the congregation could meditate on the Word.
Certainly the Holy Father’s and his MC have the knowledge to make this deviation for a Papal Liturgy, but a regular parish would not have the authority to do so.
That said, were the Bishop celebrating Mass and exercising his option to bless the faithful with the book, one might consider a second recitation of the Alleluia following the Gospel, especially if directed to do so by the Bishop or the Diocesesan Liturgist.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I don’t particularly like the periods of silence. In fact, I strongly dislike the practice. In my opinion, the Eastern Churches have it right on this. The earthly Divine Liturgy is a participation in the Heavenly Divine Liturgy, whereby we join and are joined by the angels and saints in worshiping God. If the angels are never silent, why then would we be?After reviewing the GIRM, it would seem to me that due to a time factor in the distance the Deacon will be traveling from the ambo to the Holy Father and for the Holy Father’s blessing with the Gospel book, that some musical interlude might be advisable. The rubrics are silent on this as an option, however. Regardless, should such a musical interlude be advised, a second chanting of the Alleluia makes the most liturgical sense.
However, in normal parish life, where the deacon returning the book to the priest to bless the people with is not an option accorded by the rubrics, such an interlude would be unnecessary. The “storage” of the Gospel book following the proclamation of the Gospel is not mandated by the GIRM, although there is an option discussed, so realistically, the only “silent” time between Gospel and Homily would occur if the deacon is not also the Homilist. Such silent time would be short that it would be more advisable to keep the silence so that the congregation could meditate on the Word.
Certainly the Holy Father’s and his MC have the knowledge to make this deviation for a Papal Liturgy, but a regular parish would not have the authority to do so.
That said, were the Bishop celebrating Mass and exercising his option to bless the faithful with the book, one might consider a second recitation of the Alleluia following the Gospel, especially if directed to do so by the Bishop or the Diocesesan Liturgist.
Now that I got that out, the period of silence after the Gospel in the Latin Mass (OF) is not only permitted, it’s strongly encouraged. And I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Regarding the blessing of the faithful with the Book of the Gospels, I believe that privilege falls only to the bishop. The priest is not supposed to bless anyone with the Book of the Gospels.
M
MusicMan
Guest
Perhaps you’ve highlighted a flaw in our liturgy?
C
CantorRick
Guest
Not only is it liturgically correct…it is pretty much mandated for the season of Easter, starting with the Vigil on Saturday all the way through Penticost.
The 50 day period of increased solemnity (not solemness) based on the feast being celebrated brings about the Gospel Acclamation before the Proclamation of the Gospel (“The Gospel of the Lord”) which includes the versicle and after the Gospel has been proclaimed, without versicle.
“The word of the Lord”, which is the closing of the first 2 readings, is used only for said readings and not for the Psalm nor the Gospel.
More information on this can be found in USCCB publication #7-022 and #5-544
After a while it’s not confusing…it’s eagerly looked forward to.
Best regards and God bless.
RM
- Status