Priest Discourages Reading

[SMHW]

Can someone explain to me why they think that one can not listen when they read along?

I find that I retain more if I read along while I listen.

I think that most people absorb sound best when the face is oriented toward the source of that sound. This would also allow the listener to pick up any nuances from the speaker’s mouth.

(I suppose in today’s modern churches this might suggest people should all stare at an electronic speaker.)

You have said that you have a hearing problem so I think that makes you an exceptional case, not the general rule.

 

[cecilia97]

All of this is lumping everyone into one sort of class.

That is there are those who are visual learners, those who are auditory learners and those who are tactile learners.

I am one that learns best if I hear it and read it at the same time.

There is also the fact that some readers change the words that are in the Lectonary. So I read to be sure that I am getting the Word of God as written and also so that I get it fully as I have a hearing problem.

So I guess for me, reading is ok.

Absolutely! I’m extremely visual and I “listen” with my eyes. I always follow along in the missalette during the readings. When there’s no missalette available, I try to listen and I miss a lot of important things in the message and the reading.

cecilia

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The more I read the CDF’s response to the question, the more I see how balanced it is. It seems to address most of the concerns that have been brought up in this thread.

1. QUERY: Are hand missals still needed?

REPLY: Since reform of the liturgy the usefulness of hand missals for the faithful is often questioned. All now understand the words spoken at Mass; what is more, as far as the biblical readings are concerned, all ought to be listening attentively to the word of God. Nevertheless hand missals, it seems, remain necessary. People do not always hear well, especially in large churches, and what they do hear physically they do not always understand right away. They, therefore, often need to go back over the texts heard during a celebration. In addition, the liturgy, and the eucharistic celebration above all, is “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the fount from which all the Church’s power flows” (SC art. 10). All the concerns of the spiritual life must be brought to the liturgy and that happens if participation is truly actual and “aware.” This requires frequent meditation on the liturgical texts both before and after the celebration.

So, it seems to me that the CDF didn’t take a rigorist position on this, and yet we can’t gloss over the line “all ought to be listening attentively.” I suppose that they are at least encouraging an attempt to listen without reading, if possible.

What do you think?
VC

 

[estesbob]

If they want me to stop reading my Missal during the readings they’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands…

 

[jmcrae]

I am one that learns best if I hear it and read it at the same time.

Being at Mass is not about learning, though. You’re not in Sunday School/CCD. We hear the Word of God in an undistracted way so that it can reach our heart.

We’re not trying to get it into our mind; but into our heart.

That having been said, it would also be very appropriate to do a Bible study on the daily readings, either at home by yourself, or in a group, but the purpose for that would be different than the purpose of hearing the readings at Mass.

If the readers are changing the words, they are being disobedient to the Church. Mention it to the person who does the training for the readers - they are not supposed to be interposing their own opinions into the readings.

 

[mommyof4]

Being at Mass is not about learning, though. You’re not in Sunday School/CCD. We hear the Word of God in an undistracted way so that it can reach our heart.

We’re not trying to get it into our mind; but into our heart.

Yea, but the only way it’s going to get into my HEART is if it goes through my MIND first!

 

[gelsbern]

I chuckle as I read the replies.

“I am too ADD…” “I do better if I…” “I need to see and hear…”

What a pity we don’t have more faith in the Holy Spirit’s ability to reach us during the reading of God’s Word through our ears. I am with the Rome on this.

Rev 3:22
“Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

 

[Distressed]

When I try to understand material, the more senses I use, the better. In school we all followed along in our books as our professors recited Shakespeare or Proust because we wanted every advantage of absorbing and understanding the material.

That’s why I read while listening to the Mass readings. My use of a missalette in no way violates GIRM #29.

Bishop Wilton Gregory has the best response I have seen on this matter:

americancatholicpress.org/BishopGregory.html

 

[SMHW]

At the risk of being told this is a sacreligious analogy…

This is not so different from the issue of cell phones in church. In an ideal world neither missalettes nor cell phones are needed.

We do not live in an ideal world.

 

[DonProfondo]

I just finished reading the book “Preparing Yourself for Mass” by Romano Guardini (published by Sophia Institute Press), and he argues that the word is meant to be heard, embodied and made flesh, not simply read. He suggests that you take time the evening before to prepare for Mass by pondering the readings.

Interestingly, he also urges us to pay particular attention to the

Now, there are several objections to this, of course. Some will object that they don’t have the time. Ten or fifteen minutes is too much? Perhaps you should re-order your priorities. (For example, how much television do you watch?) Some will object that the readers cannot always be relied upon, to be accurate, prepared, or even competent. Sadly, I know this is true. Complain to the pastor.

Continue to use the Magnificat, but rely on it primarily for your preparation at home. And practice your proclamation skills, and volunteer to be a reader yourself.

 

[Distressed]

At the risk of being told this is a sacreligious analogy…

This is not so different from the issue of cell phones in church. In an ideal world neither missalettes or cell phones are needed.

We do not live in an ideal world.

I’m not sure what “needed” means in this useage, but the use of a missalette is always a plus to me personally – even in the most “ideal” situation imaginable.

The use of missalettes and cell phones in a church have no linkage.

 

[Distressed]

In years past Catholics were encouraged to follow the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular/Latin missalettes.

The drive by some to “stomp-out” the use of missalettes seems to come largely as a backlash to this past custom. We can see the same sort of thinking applied to incense, bells and other externals that some feel need to be stomped-out, even though the Church sets no such requirement.

 

[dulcissima]

Our priest explained the reasoning to us. Listening to the Word being proclaimed in Mass is something we do together as a community. It is a shared and not an idividual experience. If people are reading along in their missal, it tends to chip away and fragment that shared experience. Really, the ideal would be to read from your missal that morning or the night before and come to Mass prepared to share in reception of the Word just as you do the Eucharist.

 

[Distressed]

The “ideal” for me personally is to read before the Mass, and during the Mass while simultaneously listening.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

This also brings up another question/issue… Does the procaimed Word of God have real ‘power’ such that just listening to it *proclaimed *has the power to bring about change in the person hearing it in a way that cannot be achieved by studying it privately?

Not sure about ‘power’, but the proclaimed word is a strongly Catholic concept, no? The Church accepts and embraces the idea, far more than our Protestant brethren, that the Word is passed on in both scripture and tradition, and it argues that even scripture was often transmitted orally in the earliest days as the canon was still being formed. Symbolically, as Catholics we are not as bound to the text itself, especially compared to the Sola Scriptura types. Indeed, the fact that the priest is expected to give his homily from the ambo, which is otherwise reserved for scripture, shows that in his own small way the priest’s words contribute to the growing corpus of the Word of God.

Thus, while it is not wrong per se to read along in the missal, and it may in fact be preferrable to some to read along (for a variety of reasons), and sometimes the lectors (and priests) are frankly not skilled at proclamation–I increasingly try not to follow along in the missal if at all possible because (in part) I embracethe symbolis of focusing on the Word of God in the sanctuary, and not on a printed page in my lap.

But that’s me.

 

[jmcrae]

In years past Catholics were encouraged to follow the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular/Latin missalettes.

The drive by some to “stomp-out” the use of missalettes seems to come largely as a backlash to this past custom. We can see the same sort of thinking applied to incense, bells and other externals that some feel need to be stomped-out, even though the Church sets no such requirement.

A priest once explained it to me this way:

We say certain “ritual words” when we go to family gatherings. When you see your mother, you always say the same words, but you don’t read them off a page to her - you say them from your heart - even though they are the same words probably every single time. But we say them from the heart; we never read them off of a page to her.

When she starts telling us stories, even if they are stories that we have heard before, we don’t read along from a prepared text as she is telling them to us - rather, we look her in the eye and listen attentively with our ears.

The Church is our Mother, and the Mass is a visit with our Mother. We are not at school; we are not going to be taking a test on the material that we hear. This is about speaking to and listening to our Mother.

We should treat the Church in the same way that we treat our mother - speaking to her from the heart (even though the words themselves may be oft-repeated), and listening with our heart, in love for her, and for the One about whom she is speaking to us.

We would not read along in a book when speaking to our earthly mother, so why would we read along in a book when interacting with our spiritual Mother, the Church?

 

[chicago]

In my mind what we shoud be doing is to read the Magnificat before Mass and have our own perception of what the scriptures are telling us. Then during Mass the priest/deacon will proclaim the Gospel, and at that point we will have an even better insight based on the proclamation. I like to listen to the proclamation because it is the Word of God and I think that it should be listened to and not read at that point in time. I realized that when I focus on just listening after having read the Gospel in advance, I have the best experience in letting the Word fill my soul and my mind.

See, this is precisely why I DON’T like to read through before Mass. If I do that, I come in with my own prejudices whereas if I simply read along during Mass and allow the Word to hit me for the first time during the Liturgy, I’m having a different experience. I prefer to let it come to be at Mass rather than before.

 

[chicago]

I would agree. But are you being disobedient to legitimate authority if your parish priest tells you not to read?

I don’t believe that the priest has any right to demand that you not read along. He can request it, but if you have good reason to read, you can.

 

[rr1213]

All of this is a fascinating contrast actually. From a Protestant viewpoint, we would either have our bibles with us so we can follow the reading, borrow a bible from the pew, or, in some more contemporary services, the scripture readings are put up on an overhead or powerpoint. No doubt some people just listen to the readings in Protestant Churches, but I’ve not encountered one yet where we would be actively discouraged from reading along.

 

[chicago]

I think that most people absorb sound best when the face is oriented toward the source of that sound. This would also allow the listener to pick up any nuances from the speaker’s mouth.

I find that to be distracting, actually. It’s the same reason why I don’t often look people “in the eye” when speaking with them. I’ll get lost in their eyes and forget what I was trying to say or hear them say.

(I suppose in today’s modern churches this might suggest people should all stare at an electronic speaker.)

There may be something to that, actually. When I’m listening to live music, for instance, I will sometimes cock my head sideways to better listen to a sound with my ears.