Lector surprised me but was it wrong?

[k5thbeatle]

Was out of town recently and attended Sunday mass away from home. The second lector somewhat caughht me by surprise as instead of saying “A reading from the book of Revelation” he started by saying “The book of Revelation continues”. Then at the end instead of saying “The word of the Lord” I believe he said (a baby started crying right as he finished), “The Lord Hs spoken to us”? It was hard to hear clearly but he definitely did not say “The word of the Lord”.

So my question is if this is ok? Is there a form of the liturgy/mass that allows this instead of the traditional “A reading from…” and “The word of the Lord” which are traditionally used? Quite frankly I’ve never heard anything like this before so was just curious if this lector was ok changing the opening and closing like this?

Would appreciate an answer from someone who knows.

Thanks

 

[robwar]

I am a lector and as a lector you are never suppose to ad-lib. I take it that the first lector didn’t do what the second one did? That would be something that should be brought to the attention of the priest but then the priest was right there.

 

[CatholicZ09]

I always thought that the mandatory phrases were “A reading from…” and then “The word of the Lord”. I think the lector was taking a few liberties with his position, but I don’t know if there are different phrases one can use. I’ve never heard it said differently before.

 

[robwar]

I always thought that the mandatory phrases were “A reading from…” and then “The word of the Lord”. I think the lector was taking a few liberties with his position, but I don’t know if there are different phrases one can use. I’ve never heard it said differently before.

You are correct! and those phrases are even printed in the scripture book itself. Being a lector which I take seriously does not give one license to ad lib anything. You are suppose to read faithfully from what is in front of you already printed by the Church. This is not the time to be cute and clever.

 

[YoungTradCath]

In the EF there are different introductory bits for the Gospel. Sometimes it’s “lectio…,” sometimes it’s “sequentia…” Occasionally it’s “initio…” But in the OF there are no variations for the introductory dialogues of any of the readings.

 

[robwar]

In the EF there are different introductory bits for the Gospel. Sometimes it’s “lectio…,” sometimes it’s “sequentia…” Occasionally it’s “initio…” But in the OF there are no variations for the introductory dialogues of any of the readings.

That’s nice but this is obviously a NO Mass.

 

[leahleah]

That’s nice but this is obviously a NO Mass.

OF=Ordinary Form
NO=Novus Ordo . . . which is the OF.

I didn’t appreciate the sarcastic “that’s nice.” I actually thought it was an interesting, relevant fact.

To get back to the OP, no, you’re not supposed to ad-lib like that. Hopefully the priest will let him or her know.

 

[k5thbeatle]

I am a lector and as a lector you are never suppose to ad-lib. I take it that the first lector didn’t do what the second one did? That would be something that should be brought to the attention of the priest but then the priest was right there.

You are correct that the first lector did not do this but simply read, “A reading from the book of revelation” and “The word of the Lord”.

For those of you who responded to this, is there a proper form of the liturgy that deals with this specifically?

 

[robwar]

OF=Ordinary Form
NO=Novus Ordo . . . which is the OF.

I didn’t appreciate the sarcastic “that’s nice.” I actually thought it was an interesting, relevant fact.

To get back to the OP, no, you’re not supposed to ad-lib like that. Hopefully the priest will let him or her know.

I wasn’t being sarcastic, but it is tiresome to constantly see discussions that are obviously about NO Masses get sidelined with information about a full EF Mass and yes I know OF =NO but I prefer to use the Latin phrase NO for Novus Ordo. The information isn’t truly apply to OP question about what lector #2 did at Mass. Whether an EF Mass has 2 Latin phrases before the reading or not, I can assure you that what any lector reads is printed in the book that they read from, that is what is suppose to happen in any Mass.

 

[robwar]

You are correct that the first lector did not do this but simply read, “A reading from the book of revelation” and “The word of the Lord”.

For those of you who responded to this, is there a proper form of the liturgy that deals with this specifically?

I believe either GIRM and cannon law applies. Is this your regular parish? If so, you can first go to (different parishes have different names) worship director or coordinator if there is one.
I am sure there is someone that oversees the lectors. If you don’t get satisfaction with that person, you then can approach the priest.

 

[YoungTradCath]

That’s nice but this is obviously a NO Mass.

Obviously, I said as much.

 

[NickD]

The lector should not have done this. While in service to the Church, he ought to be obedient to Her authority as well. The words he is supposed to read are clearly laid out and he should not add his own variations or, as some like to say, “nuances.”

 

[MikeInFlorida]

I would like to think the celebrant counseled the lector to use only the prescribed words to introduce and conclude the Reading.

Consider: the Mass is the Church’s highest form of prayer and the Faithful must attend Mass every Sunday (with some exceptions) under penalty of sin. Is it not appropriate to insist that the Mass be celebrated in accordance with the prescribed words and postures?

Reverence? How about just simple obedience.

Come on, man.

 

[CradleJourney]

I would agree with the other posters here about the need to keep to the proper wording.

However, maybe we could also allow for the fact that perhaps the lector is a convert who previously had done reading in another denomination and in a moment of nervousness, forgetfulness, old habit, or what-have-you had reverted to his prior way of prefacing and ending a reading?

I’m not saying it’s right and yes, hopefully, the priest or someone in authority will speak to him.

Where I’m “coming from” is having a family member (deacon in another Christian church) who said something similar when he did one of the readings at my father’s funeral mass (obviously a one-time situation), and my own embarrassment at having spoken my own last name wrong on a few occasions - even though I’ve been married for over 15 years.

I guess what I’m attempting to say is that even though the lector was wrong and should be corrected, I want to assume it was an error or a misunderstanding on his part rather than a deliberate attack against proper reverence and ceremony for the mass.

:twocents:

 

[maryjk]

I would agree with the other posters here about the need to keep to the proper wording.

However, maybe we could also allow for the fact that perhaps the lector is a convert who previously had done reading in another denomination and in a moment of nervousness, forgetfulness, old habit, or what-have-you had reverted to his prior way of prefacing and ending a reading?

I’m not saying it’s right and yes, hopefully, the priest or someone in authority will speak to him.

Where I’m “coming from” is having a family member (deacon in another Christian church) who said something similar when he did one of the readings at my father’s funeral mass (obviously a one-time situation), and my own embarrassment at having spoken my own last name wrong on a few occasions - even though I’ve been married for over 15 years.

I guess what I’m attempting to say is that even though the lector was wrong and should be corrected, I want to assume it was an error or a misunderstanding on his part rather than a deliberate attack against proper reverence and ceremony for the mass.

:twocents:

Sometimes people forget that Lectors, Deacons and Priests are people too. It could have been a simple mistake. One that the Lector is still reliving in his mind.

 

[Chatter163]

In the EF there are different introductory bits for the Gospel. Sometimes it’s “lectio…,” sometimes it’s “sequentia…” Occasionally it’s “initio…” But in the OF there are no variations for the introductory dialogues of any of the readings.

Actually, in the EF it is never lectio for the gospel. The gospel is always Sequentia sancti evangelii secundum….(the continuation of the holg gospel according to…), unless it is the first few verses of a gospel, in which case it is Initium sancti evangelii secundum…(the beginning of the holy gospel according to…). Lectio is used for old and new testament readings in the EF, but never for the gospel.

 

[robwar]

I would agree with the other posters here about the need to keep to the proper wording.

However, maybe we could also allow for the fact that perhaps the lector is a convert who previously had done reading in another denomination and in a moment of nervousness, forgetfulness, old habit, or what-have-you had reverted to his prior way of prefacing and ending a reading?

I’m not saying it’s right and yes, hopefully, the priest or someone in authority will speak to him.

Where I’m “coming from” is having a family member (deacon in another Christian church) who said something similar when he did one of the readings at my father’s funeral mass (obviously a one-time situation), and my own embarrassment at having spoken my own last name wrong on a few occasions - even though I’ve been married for over 15 years.

I guess what I’m attempting to say is that even though the lector was wrong and should be corrected, I want to assume it was an error or a misunderstanding on his part rather than a deliberate attack against proper reverence and ceremony for the mass.

:twocents:

yes, those are good points. This again was a one time visit to this parish and we don’t know this person or the whole story around it. I think I was just answering the basic question which as a lector, you are suppose to read what is in the lectionary Bible which includes the beginning and end (Word of the Lord) printed in it, nothing more or nothing less. You are also correct in that we don’t know the circumstance of the person and I would think he would be corrected.