Using the missal during the liturgy

[TK421]

A comment from another thread jogged my memory about something. I remember back in RCIA, one of the weekly pages in the catechisis said that we shouldn’t follow along with the missal but should instead simply listen and “be led” by what is being said.

Was the particular text just projecting its own opinion? (I remember another time in RCIA on prayer it said, “Pray only when you want to”, and I and a few other people quickly disregarded that as garbage).

 

[FrDavid96]

Whether or not to use a missal is the choice of an individual person. That’s not for anyone else to say.

Now, if he was talking about a particular moment or day, perhaps he was just asking the RCIA participants to experience not-using a missal. If it was a teaching technique for that moment, then that’s fine; but if he was expanding that to mean that you should not use a Missal at all, then he was just projecting his personal opinion. That might work for him, but it’s not right for everyone.

 

[TK421]

From my memory, the binder was speaking as a general message to the catechumens.

I also remember it very, very carefully side-stepped the issue of contraception. It talked about Church teaching, and then in the next paragraph it talked about instances where it is okay to disagree with the Pope, without explicitly making a connection between the first paragraph and the next.

The part talking about the missals stuck in my head though. I even made it a point for the past year not to follow along with the missals, but I do think it’s better for me.

Focusing in Mass is an issue for me. When I daydream during Mass, I tend to daydream on spiritual subjects, but I’m still daydreaming.

 

[bobballen_18]

Yes, what Father said - there are plenty of (good) reasons to use a missal and to not use one. It’s up to you to decide. There could be some days where it is good to use one but other days not good, even if you brought it to use.

There is no Church teaching on whether or not one must use a missal at Mass.

IMHO, in the OF Mass where vernacular is the norm, it is not as essential to have/use a missal, but then again many regular OF attendees like to use one, for various reasons, and that is perfectly fine. In the EF Mass, I think many people who attend it have a missal, obviously one reason (among others) being to have the vernacular translation of various Mass texts at hand since most EF Mass-goers are not fluent in Latin.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father David is quite correct. The decision to use or not use a hand missal or missalette is for the individual and should not be made by others.

I know some who have studied liturgy advance the notion that it is better to only hear the Word proclaimed as well as the liturgical texts only as they are spoken. I do not agree with this thesis. It is problematic. Some people better assimilate and retain texts – or pray them – when they are reading along. There is nothing wrong or imperfect about that.

Some buildings have poor acoustics and some people who read texts can be difficult to follow or comprehend for various reasons. Some texts can be complicated and require reflection to and re-reading to fully appreciate. In all these cases, the text in hand can really help – to better understand and the text in hand can also help to avoid distraction.

Whichever method best helps you to be best engaged with the sacred liturgy is what you should use.

Congratulations on being received into full communion with the Church. I hope you are able to continue to read and study about the incredible and rich patrimony that is now yours as a Catholic. There are available many great resources that are solid and faithful to Church teaching and that help us to grow spiritually as knowledgeable and faithful Catholics. God bless you.

 

[bardegaulois]

It’s your preference. Of course, every Catholic should know how to use a Missal, but so much of the Mass is immutable that it isn’t necessary.

I generally use my Missal, but I also usually hear an EF Mass, in which a good part of the Mass is said silently and all is in Latin. I’ve found that to use a Missal at an EF Mass is a very different experience from using one at an OF Mass, as though you’re praying a prayer inwardly in union with the celebrating priest and all around you rather simply reading along as you are spoken to. Moreover, my Missal has many of the Latin hymns in it, which can be very helpful.

 

[DebChris]

When the text is available, I read along. That is because I am a very visual person and reading helps me hear the Word better as it is proclaimed.
Some people read very quickly or very slowly. They may read ahead or behind the person who is proclaiming the message of Scripture. This can be a concern for some individuals. Does reading the passage help me better hear the passage as it is proclaimed? In my case, the answer is yes. Each person needs to answer that question themselves.
As for prayer, the Apostle says to pray always. As we become more accustomed to prayer, it becomes more a natural part of our lives and therefore less burdensome, and something that we seek out. Prayer is lifting our hearts and minds to God, a joy and not a chore.

 

[Brofaby]

It is on the part of the individual to make a choice whether or not to use missal during the liturgy. It is advisable not to use, so that the individual may be able to concentrate and listen to the proclaimed word. The use of the missal during the liturgy may serve as a distraction to the individual. Gratias

 

[Neofight]

I’ve seen it taken to even more ridiculous extremes…I’ve been told simply reading the Mass Readings is inappropriate, because the word is to be proclaimed to us, not read by us…and actually had people wag their fingers at me for not just reading the readings, but reading them on a kindle or other electronic device.

 

[Phemie]

Whether or not to use a missal is the choice of an individual person. That’s not for anyone else to say.

Now, if he was talking about a particular moment or day, perhaps he was just asking the RCIA participants to experience not-using a missal. If it was a teaching technique for that moment, then that’s fine; but if he was expanding that to mean that you should not use a Missal at all, then he was just projecting his personal opinion. That might work for him, but it’s not right for everyone.

Oh believe me this “no reading, just listening” position is promoted widely. I first ran into it in the mid '80s when I did a workshop for readers led by a priest who was considered a great liturgist. He started reading the Gospel and then all of a sudden his voice changed. We looked up and he had his back to us, reading. Everyone looking up from their missalettes, pretty much as one, was something you could actually feel. He turned around and said, “Well, if you’re not going to look at me, why would I look at you?”

Pretty much every workshop I’ve attended since had promoted that same thing. At first I agreed but then I learned more about learning styles and I started to vehemently disagree with the position. Personally, I close my eyes and listen so I’m neither reading nor looking at the person doing the reading.

 

[DaveBj]

Caveat: this is only my own personal experience; others’ mileage, etc.

I used the missal[lette] when I first started attending Mass in 2004, but it didn’t take long for me to acclimate to the prayers, proclamations, etc., and I started leaving the 'lette in the holder. When it comes to the readings, I read the Bible a lot during my 40-ish years as a non-Catholic, and that has made me familiar with just about any text that might show up in the Mass readings. On any given Sunday I go over the readings via iBreviary on my phone, but while Mass is in progress, I just close my eyes and listen. However, other folks absorb better if they’re looking at the text while hearing it being read. And there are long-time Catholics in our congregation who are still reading the Confiteor and the Credo from a script. Sly and his family had it right – different strokes for different folks. Do what works best at focusing your attention on what is going on.

 

[FrDavid96]

Oh believe me this “no reading, just listening” position is promoted widely. I first ran into it in the mid '80s when I did a workshop for readers led by a priest who was considered a great liturgist. He started reading the Gospel and then all of a sudden his voice changed. We looked up and he had his back to us, reading. Everyone looking up from their missalettes, pretty much as one, was something you could actually feel. He turned around and said, “Well, if you’re not going to look at me, why would I look at you?”

Pretty much every workshop I’ve attended since had promoted that same thing. At first I agreed but then I learned more about learning styles and I started to vehemently disagree with the position. Personally, I close my eyes and listen so I’m neither reading nor looking at the person doing the reading.

Ah yes, “the liturgist.”

I rather think that the real reason why modern liturgists don’t like the idea of people reading the texts at Mass is because they fear that people might notice all the changes that the “liturgist” makes to the text. Just my little theory. Part 1. Part 2 follows.

It’s also very telling that the priest in your anecdote made an issue of “look at me.” A symptom of the modern liturgist.

If a liturgist were truly concerned about people hearing the readings/prayers, it would make no difference where people’s eyes are focused. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that we see with our eyes and hear with our ears.

I have a little radio in my office that I sometimes play when I’m at my desk. Anyone want to venture a guess where I put it? It’s behind me. I don’t need to see my radio in order to use it.

Why should I need to see the “liturgist” in order to hear the Gospel?

Again, it’s a symptom of the modern liturgist that their mantra is “it’s all about me.”

 

[Evan]

We once received the Mass in American English. A language I can understand and follow without effort.

Three years ago, I had to learn Vietnamese English, quite difficult if any children were present or if it was the cold and flu season.

Two years ago I went to a mass in Korean. I only know were in the Mass we were due to the ACTIONS of the priests and servers, I did not understand a single word (except for the letter from the Cardinal of Seoul that was in English)

This last year, I have been struggling to learn Indian English. Again, I hope to master the language in the next year, but if I cannot understand the sign of the cross, I have little hope of understanding the Gospel.

I understand these languages better than freely spoken Latin, but I know noone who fluently speaks Latin.

In all cases, I would never disparage anyone who feels the need of a missal to be able to more participate actively in the Mass.

 

[Faithful_Seeker]

I agree with Fr. David on it being a personal choice. However, I do see value in listening rather than reading, especially if the lector knows the verses and presents them well.

I’ve been a lector for many years and consider preparation a necessity for a well delivered reading. As a lector, it’s very nice to look out at the congregation and see people looking at you, listening, and actually absorbing what is being said and understanding the meaning behind it. This seems to occur more often when a lector knows the reading, has practiced, and can deliver most of it with only occasional glances at the text.

I’m well aware that some lectors very obviously do not know the material they are presenting and struggle as they literally read every word, and many rarely ever look up. Personally, this bugs me. Even I have a tendency to use the missal and read it myself when the lector is doing a poor job. So I do understand why some use the missal.

In my opinion, there is really no excuse at all for any lector to be unfamiliar with the reading of the day. Even IF he/she did not plan on reading that day and is filling in at the last minute. As lectors, it is the responsibility of each one to be prepared when needed. It takes little effort to preview the readings and all lectors should do that even when they are not scheduled to read. There are only a few people who are such good lectors that they can properly present a reading even without practice or prior review. But there are a few.

A good Lector can help you hear the urgency, or the prayerful plea, or the reprimand or any other meaning in how they present it to you. And sometimes give a better understanding of what is meant than one could ever hear by simply reading it themselves. A so-so lector, not so much.

If you value a lector, its nice to compliment them once in awhile by listening rather than reading. It will be noticed by the lector. But if you read the missal, that’s perfectly ok too!
Peace.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Well, personally I find it disturbing when a lector proclaims the reading without referencing the text. I remember one lector in particular who memorized the reading so as to not have to even look at the lectionary. But that belies what one is called…a reader or a lector. It was also distracting to many in the congregation, for various reasons, because it was evident that the person was never looking at the lectionary.

After all these years, I could recite the Gospel without having to look at the text but I studiously don’t. Those in the congregation should have the sense that I am proclaiming it from the Book of the Gospels, which has been carried in procession and perhaps incensed as a sign of veneration. It is not as though I were an actor on a stage making a dramatic presentation.

There are various interesting theses advanced by liturgists but I long ago gave up trying to follow their fad of the day.

That which helps the member of the congregation to best engage with the readings and other liturgical texts is what he or she should do so as to have that full, active and conscious participation in the liturgy called for by Sacrosanctum concilium.

 

[DaveBj]

Ah yes, “the liturgist.”

I rather think that the real reason why modern liturgists don’t like the idea of people reading the texts at Mass is because they fear that people might notice all the changes that the “liturgist” makes to the text. Just my little theory. Part 1. Part 2 follows.

snip

This is why I don’t volunteer when our parish calls for people to become readers. I would have to read a translation that says one thing when I know very well from my decades as a Bible-studying Protestant that the source texts of Sacred Scripture say something else.

 

[Faithful_Seeker]

I’m not sure what I meant to convey came out in my previous post. Maybe I should slow down.

What I meant to say is that just because someone is reading their missal, it does NOT mean they are not getting a better understanding of the reading from the lector. Sometimes a good lector can shed new light. It is perfectly fine to use a missal. And sometimes absolutely necessary.
A lector should not be reading for themselves or to be patted on the back for a good job, but to hopefully convey what the writer felt and meant when the words were written or presented to a group of people to lead them to being good Christians. And how the same words can apply today in the Christian life.

Sometimes, due to a not so prepared reader, you must use your missal and decipher the meaning yourself.

Sometimes, a lector will work very hard, practice the reading, and is blessed to be able to present it in a way that you almost sense you’re hearing the original person who spoke the words. I’ve heard a couple readers who can do just that and its a good thing.

I meant to say a great lector should probably be appreciated. But what the lector presents should not at all be for himself/herself to be appreciated (hope that’s not misunderstood)…but the goal should be for ALL the congregation to have a better understanding—whether they listen or whether they read does not matter.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m not sure what I meant to convey came out in my previous post. Maybe I should slow down.

What I meant to say is that just because someone is reading their missal, it does NOT mean they are not getting a better understanding of the reading from the lector. Sometimes a good lector can shed new light. It is perfectly fine to use a missal. And sometimes absolutely necessary.
A lector should not be reading for themselves or to be patted on the back for a good job, but to hopefully convey what the writer felt and meant when the words were written or presented to a group of people to lead them to being good Christians. And how the same words can apply today in the Christian life.

Sometimes, due to a not so prepared reader, you must use your missal and decipher the meaning yourself.

Sometimes, a lector will work very hard, practice the reading, and is blessed to be able to present it in a way that you almost sense you’re hearing the original person who spoke the words. I’ve heard a couple readers who can do just that and its a good thing.

I meant to say a great lector should probably be appreciated. But what the lector presents should not at all be for himself/herself to be appreciated (hope that’s not misunderstood)…but the goal should be for ALL the congregation to have a better understanding—whether they listen or whether they read does not matter.

 

[HelenRose]

It is on the part of the individual to make a choice whether or not to use missal during the liturgy. It is advisable not to use, so that the individual may be able to concentrate and listen to the proclaimed word. The use of the missal during the liturgy may serve as a distraction to the individual. Gratias

I tend to pay more attention when I am also reading. My mind stays on track and does not wander off. But, this is an individual trait. It is not the same for everyone. So, my advice is: do what works best for you.

 

[Faithful_Seeker]

Well, personally I find it disturbing when a lector proclaims the reading without referencing the text. I remember one lector in particular who memorized the reading so as to not have to even look at the lectionary. But that belies what one is called…a reader or a lector. It was also distracting to many in the congregation, for various reasons, because it was evident that the person was never looking at the lectionary.

After all these years, I could recite the Gospel without having to look at the text but I studiously don’t. Those in the congregation should have the sense that I am proclaiming it from the Book of the Gospels, which has been carried in procession and perhaps incensed as a sign of veneration. It is not as though I were an actor on a stage making a dramatic presentation.

There are various interesting theses advanced by liturgists but I long ago gave up trying to follow their fad of the day.

That which helps the member of the congregation to best engage with the readings and other liturgical texts is what he or she should do so as to have that full, active and conscious participation in the liturgy called for by Sacrosanctum concilium.

What you’ve said here is very interesting! I have never once seen anyone at all give a reading ‘without EVER looking at the text’ and would be amazed as well as a little curious why someone would think of doing that.
At the same time, I do not think a lector should stand in front of the congregation and NEVER raise his/her head or simply be so unprepared they must read Every single word.

I’ve also never heard a good lector who is prepared who ‘changed’ any of the liturgy or any single words. I have indeed heard completely unprepared lectors skip a word or two or misspeak or mispronounce words. Which is another justified reason to KNOW the reading and to practice it so that it might be presented well.

A lector IS a reader. But a lector is also a speaker—of the Word. You would be hard pressed to find any speaker anywhere who simply reads and never ‘looks up’ or does NOT know the material being presented.

Expecting a reader to never look up from the text or no one to ever listen rather than read is a little like expecting no one to ever look at the priest or anything else that’s going on during Mass isn’t it?

A lector is NOT there to be seen, we are there to be ‘heard’. But that does not mean its taboo to have your eyes raised to something else or listening or to even occasionally glance at the reader.
I for one do NOT want to be stared at or have someone look at me the majority of the time I’m reading. And I don’t know anyone who would want that.

Do you really believe the disciples NEVER looked up or glanced at the people they were speaking to when speaking the Words of Christ? Do you believe the people they spoke to never ever glanced at them?

Often times when I’m ‘listening’ rather than reading, I’m not looking at the lector. I may be gazing on the crucifix as I listen or one of the stations of the cross. Listening does NOT require ‘looking at reader’.
Being a good lector does NOT mean keeping head down or reading every single word without knowing what the words or reading says.