The Gospel reading on Palm Sunday (multiple readers)

[benedictgal]

Here is the citation from Paschale Solemnitatis, the Circular Letter pertaining to Holy Week:

1. The passion narrative occupies a special place. It should be sung or read in the traditional way, that is, by three persons who take the part of Christ, the narrator, and the people. The passion is proclaimed by deacons or priests, or by lay readers. In the latter case, the part of the Christ should be reserved to the priest.

I hope that this helps.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

ohioszo I had to read the narrator part on Sunday, it is a chalenge to stay focused and not read other peoples lines. I also had to read the 1st reading and the POF. I almost lost my voice.

I hope and trust that any Priest would want and expect the role of Christ as he does have the faculites for that in some cases. Benidictgal has a good quote but the problem will hinge on the word “should” not must

 

[benedictgal]

ohioszo I had to read the narrator part on Sunday, it is a chalenge to stay focused and not read other peoples lines. I also had to read the 1st reading and the POF. I almost lost my voice.

I hope and trust that any Priest would want and expect the role of Christ as he does have the faculites for that in some cases. Benidictgal has a good quote but the problem will hinge on the word “should” not must

Actually, Rome gave us an excellent example. When the passion is read by priests and deacons only, then, the part of Christ will be read by someone who is clergy. Yesterday, three deacons chanted the Passion. One of them was the narrator, the other one was the speaker other than Christ and the middle deacon chanted the part of Christ. The choir chanted the part of the people (although there were notations for the people to sing along).

The “should” kicks in when the Passion is read by laymen, where one is the narrator and the second one is the speaker other than Christ. Then, the words of Christ are to be proclaimed by the priest.

 

[IrishAm]

ohioszo I had to read the narrator part on Sunday, it is a chalenge to stay focused and not read other peoples lines. I also had to read the 1st reading and the POF. I almost lost my voice.

I hope and trust that any Priest would want and expect the role of Christ as he does have the faculites for that in some cases. Benidictgal has a good quote but the problem will hinge on the word “should” not must

You were not alone, hilde the dog. In addition to the narrator part, the 1st reading and the prayers of the faithful, because there is no choir or cantor at the early Mass, I also had the responsorial psalm.

 

[Brendan]

Actually, Rome gave us an excellent example. When the passion is read by priests and deacons only, then, the part of Christ will be read by someone who is clergy. Yesterday, three deacons chanted the Passion. One of them was the narrator, the other one was the speaker other than Christ and the middle deacon chanted the part of Christ. The choir chanted the part of the people (although there were notations for the people to sing along).

The “should” kicks in when the Passion is read by laymen, where one is the narrator and the second one is the speaker other than Christ. Then, the words of Christ are to be proclaimed by the priest.

We had the our Pastor read the words of Christ, the Deacon as the narrator, and the Associate Pastor came out ( in alb a nd stole) to read the spoken parts other than Christ.

 

[whatevergirl]

Instead of the priest, our church had a couple of lay people read the part of Christ during the Passion on Palm Sunday.

I know the part of Christ is supposed to be reserved for the priest per the Missal, but how big of an infraction is this? Is it worth bringing up to the priest or not?

What was your priest doing during the reading?

 

[FrDavid96]

ohioszo I had to read the narrator part on Sunday, it is a chalenge to stay focused and not read other peoples lines. I also had to read the 1st reading and the POF. I almost lost my voice.

I hope and trust that any Priest would want and expect the role of Christ as he does have the faculites for that in some cases. Benidictgal has a good quote but the problem will hinge on the word “should” not must

“…the part of Christ, if possible, reserved to the priest.” is how the Sacramentary reads. In other words, so long as it is “possible” for the priest to do this, he must be the one to do it. Only if it is “impossible” may one who is not the priest read those parts. I can imagine a few scenarios, but they would be very rare.

 

[rlg94086]

If you go back to the quote from PS, you will note that dividing the reading up into three people is the Traditional way of proclaiming the Passion. Furthermore, the part of Christ is reserved for the priest when done in this manner. The deviation from the norm and from Tradition is what is troubling.

Yes. I understand what you posted. However, I would still say that doing it in the method the Seattle Archdiocese directed is not “progressive” in the normal sense of the word when discussing liturgy. Now, if we had mimes and liturgical dancers involved, then I would use the word “progressive.”

BTW…you don’t seem troubled by parishes that have the congregation say the part of the crowd, even though that is not in the rubrics. Is it only some deviations that bother you, or any deviation?

 

[SMHW]

It would be interesting to look at the OCP Missal for Palm Sunday this year and contrast it with next year’s. If the progressives at OCP are involved, then it will be changed to match the Seattle Archdiocese’s instruction. My parish doesn’t use OCP, so I can’t check.

Just for the record, OCP has the Passion narrative divided into four parts: Narrator, Jesus, Voice, and Crowd.

 

[ohioszo]

ohioszo I had to read the narrator part on Sunday, it is a chalenge to stay focused and not read other peoples lines. I also had to read the 1st reading and the POF. I almost lost my voice.

This is the line that he missed: “Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last.” And he missed this direction: Here all kneel and pause for a short time. He was interrupted by our Pastor, after the Deacon had paged ahead, reading about the torn curtain and even that didn’t seem to match up. I think everyone was following the reading closely in their books.

Somewhere here a poster spoke of readers who are unprepared, not reading ahead of time. I think that our Deacon was reading without knowing what he was reading. That is my opinion. The men retreatants were half asleep, I suppose. Oh yeah, but I love them, of course. It is worthwhile to bring people together, wonderful thing.

 

[Rose_Maniple]

Interesting. In our parish, the part of Christ was taken by the congregation on Sunday.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes. I understand what you posted. However, I would still say that doing it in the method the Seattle Archdiocese directed is not “progressive” in the normal sense of the word when discussing liturgy. Now, if we had mimes and liturgical dancers involved, then I would use the word “progressive.”

BTW…you don’t seem troubled by parishes that have the congregation say the part of the crowd, even though that is not in the rubrics. Is it only some deviations that bother you, or any deviation?

I have already explained that there is indeed a solid tradition for the part of the crowd. We are they and they are we. The crowd calling for Jesus to be crucified is, in all actuality, the voice of every man and woman who has ever walked this earth. We are the crowd. Every time we sin, we call out for Jesus to be crucified. We are just as much aj part of the crowd adn even moreso than the ones who were there.

The crowd has been a part of the Passion for a very long time. In fact, if you were to have caught the feed from the Papal Mass, the part of the crowd was sung by both the choir and the faithful.

 

[CindiA]

I was sorta wondering about that at my parish this weekend too. We have new priests since last year and the readings were divided up between 3 people. But, it seemed that it was divided up by length or readings and not by parts. Each of the three people (a woman, a man, and the priest) read parts of Christ. I’m new to the Church and this is only the third time I’ve been thru this season. But, still it struck me as odd that all three read parts of Christ and not just the priest. I thought that it was b’cuz new priests meant new way to do things. I had no idea that it was the norm at this time of year. Now that I see what has been discussed, I’m thinking that my “gut” feeling was correct. Any suggestions as to how (or if) I should approach our priests about this?

 

[rlg94086]

I have already explained that there is indeed a solid tradition for the part of the crowd. We are they and they are we. The crowd calling for Jesus to be crucified is, in all actuality, the voice of every man and woman who has ever walked this earth. We are the crowd. Every time we sin, we call out for Jesus to be crucified. We are just as much aj part of the crowd adn even moreso than the ones who were there.

The crowd has been a part of the Passion for a very long time. In fact, if you were to have caught the feed from the Papal Mass, the part of the crowd was sung by both the choir and the faithful.

…but it is not included by the authoritative document from the Holy See that you cited. It is also not the way it is done in the EF (priest only, I think). So the “tradition” seems to be pretty young.

 

[FrDavid96]

I think we need to make a distinction between two different elements of this thread.

1. How should the parts of the Passion be divided? In segments of one reader following the other; or by the “character” * doing the speaking?
2. The comments in the OP made a point that people should be experiencing the Passion and not be distracted by having their noses stuck in the books. I think that everyone who has posted here thus far would agree to that point, but I haven’t seen much discussion about it. It seems to me that this was the major thrust of the article quoted in the OP.

• for lack of a better word.

As far as I know, the Church describes how the Passion Narrative is to be proclaimed, but does not provide specific points in the readings when the changes from one person to another are made except to specify that the words of Christ must be said by the priest. There is (to my knowlege) no official Lectionary printing which says "narrator: " and "Christ: " etc. etc.

 

[japhy]

…but it is not included by the authoritative document from the Holy See that you cited. It is also not the way it is done in the EF (priest only, I think). So the “tradition” seems to be pretty young.

I would agree. I don’t think the 1962 Missal includes the congregation. The fact that the Church requests at least deacons for the proclamation, or, if lay people must participate, that the priest must speak the parts of Christ, leads me to believe that the Church does not look fondly on the idea of a non-ordained person proclaiming the Gospel during Mass.

 

[Phemie]

As far as I know, the Church describes how the Passion Narrative is to be proclaimed, but does not provide specific points in the readings when the changes from one person to another are made except to specify that the words of Christ must be said by the priest. There is (to my knowlege) no official Lectionary printing which says "narrator: " and "Christ: " etc. etc.

You mean the US Lectionary doesn’t divide the Passions that way?

The Canadian Lectionary gives us first a ‘through read’ Passion followed by a Passion divided into specific parts. The Lectionary in use divides the Passions into 5 parts, Narrator, Jesus, S1, S2 & S3. S2 is usually read by the congregation.

The new Lectionary, which becomes official at Pentecost, breaks it only into 3 parts: Narrator, Jesus & S. We read from this translation this year since nobody in the pews had the reading from the old Lectionary so would have been unable to respond.

 

[FrDavid96]

You mean the US Lectionary doesn’t divide the Passions that way?

Yes, that’s exactly what I mean.

At least I can say that all of the current printings of the Lectionary which I myself have looked-at do not have the Passion Narrative divided. Whether or not there is an official version, I don’t know, but I’ve neither seen it nor been able to find it. That could be an odd coincidence.

As far as I know the “divisions” are simply made by the missalette printers.

 

[japhy]

At least I can say that all of the current printings of the Lectionary which I myself have looked-at do not have the Passion Narrative divided. Whether or not there is an official version, I don’t know, but I’ve neither seen it nor been able to find it. That could be an odd coincidence.

The 1962 Missal, on the other hand, does have the divisions marked. The different speakers are, I think, N:, S:, and +: (for the priest).

 

[msproule]

Any suggestions as to how (or if) I should approach our priests about this?

CindiA,

Here is what I wrote to our parochial vicar. He was the celebrant of the Mass I attended where the same abuse occurred. In the past, I have sent similar notes to our pastor for other infractions but he has shown little interest in fixing them. Even though our parochial vicar is being transferred to another parish soon, I thought I might appeal to him first.
I want to take this opportunity to ask a question about this past Sunday at the 5:00 PM Mass. I was a little perplexed about how the Passion Gospel was read; I have never experienced it quite this way. Normally, each of the different singular parts of the narrative are read by the priest and two other people while the congregation reads on the part of the “crowd”. I did not mind just listening this time. What troubled me was that by alternating sections among the four readers, the part of Christ was not always read by the priest. Out of curiosity, I looked up the only document I know of that discusses this, Paschale Solemnitatis from the Congregation of Divine Worship in 1988. In this instruction, it seems pretty clear what should be done:

33. The passion narrative occupies a special place. It should be sung or read in the traditional way, that is, by three persons who take the parts of Christ, the narrator and the people. The passion is proclaimed by deacons or priests, or by lay readers. In the latter case, the part of Christ should be reserved to the priest.
I guess I was wondering if there was some other law of which I am unaware that allows for deviations from this instruction, which seems to still be in force. Since this is the first time I can recall experiencing this, I was thinking this might have been a recent change requested by the bishop. Do you know if this is the case?
​

From what I know about our bishop, this was very likely done without his approval. However, I tried not to be accusatory in my note. Instead, I give everybody the benefit of the doubt while still stating the facts as I know them.