Blessings and Lectors at Mass
Date: November 16, 2024
Author: Fr. Edward McNamara, LC
Question: May the celebrant at Mass bless the lectors when they make the sign of reverence before proclaiming the reading? I have seen it used in the Ambrosian rite of Milan, Italy, and the theme was broached in the 2008 synod on Verbum Domini. Would it be possible for a bishop to establish this as a liturgical norm? -- V.P., Escuintla, Guatemala
Answer: The question has two parts: the first regarding the blessing of the reader, the second regarding the bishop’s power to institute new liturgical rites.
Our reader has mentioned the practice of the Ambrosian rite in which the reader is blessed by the celebrant. This is also a practice in several Eastern Catholic Churches.
Except for the blessing of the deacon by the celebrant before proclaiming the Gospel, or the blessing of a priest by a bishop in the same situation, the Roman rite does not foresee other blessings of readers.
These different practices developed for several historical reasons.
In the Roman rite the proclamation of the Gospel has been especially underlined with the procession of the Book of the Gospels and being a particular ministry of the deacon.
Also, unlike the Roman rite, in which the proclamation of the Gospel is not considered a presidential act, in some Eastern rites it is always proclaimed by the principal celebrant with the deacon proclaiming the epistle and the lector the Old Testament. These differences in perspective have led to diverse liturgical practices.
It must also be admitted that current practice and the lectionary of the Roman rite is relatively recent in liturgical terms, having been deeply restructured in 1970 following the Second Vatican Council. The use of lay lectors and the institution of the ministry of lectors are also recent additions to the rites as before only clerics would read during the Mass.
Also, as we mentioned in a recent column on bows, the sign of reverence is not necessarily a part of the rite. And if the lector has entered the sanctuary during the entrance procession, he or she may move directly to the ambo for the reading without making any sign of reverence to the celebrant.
That said, liturgical practice in this area may still be open to further logical organic developments over time.
This leads us to the second aspect regarding the liturgical prerogatives of the local bishop with respect to universal liturgical laws.
The bishop has in fact wide authority to make binding norms for his diocese in several areas of liturgy. In some cases, he may also interpret liturgical laws if no higher interpretation is available. Such norms are binding on all, including, in most cases, members of religious orders.
Thus, the Code of Canon Law states:
"Canon 838.1 — The supervision of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, in accord with the law, the diocesan bishop.
"Canon 839.2 — Local ordinaries are to see to it that the prayers and other pious and sacred exercises of the Christian people are fully in harmony with the norms of the Church."
The rule of thumb regarding a bishop's authority is that he should not forbid what the universal law permits, nor permit what the universal law forbids. To this we could add a corollary that he may not legally introduce liturgical novelties.
Like all general norms, there may be legitimate exceptions which would justify going against these notions in specific cases.
That said, according to a response from the liturgy office of the U.S. bishops' conference, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal grants bishops specific authority to regulate liturgy of the Mass in the following areas:
"The publication of norms on concelebration (GIRM, No. 202), service at the altar (GIRM, No. 107), Holy Communion under both kinds (GIRM, Nos. 282-283), the construction and renovation of church Buildings (GIRM, Nos. 291 and 315), posture (GIRM, No. 43.3), liturgical music (GIRM, Nos. 48, 87), and the establishment of days of prayer (GIRM, No. 373)."
Other documents mention the bishop's right to make norms regarding "The regulation of Masses on radio, television and via the internet, and his responsibility to establish a diocesan calendar."
Thus, the principle that the bishop should not "forbid what is permitted" would mean that he should not "allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted" (see the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, No. 21).
A bishop could not normally forbid, for example, the use of Eucharistic Prayer III nor mandate that it be always used for funerals.
Not permitting what is forbidden means that in general terms a bishop cannot contravene a clear norm of the liturgical books. For example, a bishop would not normally have the authority to allow no kneeling whatsoever in his diocese, since kneeling is expressly foreseen in the books.
That said, however, it must be recognized that bishops have wide powers of dispensation and may permit some exceptions to universal liturgical law for a just cause.
For example, if a few churches in the diocese have no kneelers, and their eventual installation is technically very difficult or economically not feasible in the short term, a bishop could allow that parish to omit kneeling to favor a unified posture at Mass, at least until a solution is found.
Not introducing novelties means just that — no bishop has the authority to introduce any new liturgical practice. The above-mentioned response of the U.S. bishops’ comments:
"With the exception of these and other modifications of the law explicitly assigned to the Diocesan Bishop, no additional changes to liturgical law may be introduced to Diocesan liturgical practice without the specific prior approval of the Holy See."
Returning to the question of blessing of readers, and taking the above into account, we must respond that an individual bishop could not introduce such a rite and that establishing stable amendments to the Roman Missal, having the force of particular law in a diocese, is not a prerogative of the diocesan bishop.
The individual bishop, however, is not bereft of any hope of introducing possibly useful pastoral initiatives.
Liturgical law already provides a complex process through which a bishops' conference can propose permanent adaptations to the postures and texts of the liturgical books.
Such adaptations require a two-thirds majority of the bishops’ conference, and the subsequent approval of the Holy See before these changes can be mandated as particular law for that country.
Although elaborate and unwieldy, the necessity of persuading two-thirds of fellow bishops, and the Holy See, of the merits of a pastoral initiative gives that initiative much greater value; it means that it has been weighed and pondered from the theological, historical and pastoral points of view.
Also, if approved, it may set an example for other countries to follow and make a positive contribution to the organic development of the liturgy.
* * *
Readers may send questions to zenit.liturgy@gmail.com. Please put the word "Liturgy" in the subject field. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country. Father McNamara can only answer a small selection of the great number of questions that arrive.