• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

A Mini-Retreat

Fr. David Friel · August 6, 2012

The Lectionary for Mass is a mystery to most folks, even to those who are very involved in parish life. One simple thing to know about the Sunday readings is that they run on a three-year cycle. In Year A, for example, we hear mostly from the Gospel of Matthew. In Year B, we mostly read from Mark. And, in Year C, the Gospels come from Luke.

Right now, we’re in Year B—the year of Mark. Yet, the Gospel for this Sunday is taken not from Mark, but from John. This week, and actually for the next four Sundays, the Church reads from the same chapter: John, chapter 6. Why? What’s going on? What is this foray into John in the middle of the Year of Mark all about?

Well, John chapter 6 is a special chapter. The Gospel of John doesn’t have any account of the Last Supper, when Jesus instituted the Eucharist. That’s not to say, of course, that John includes no Eucharistic theology. He just goes about it differently than Matthew, Mark, & Luke (what are called the “Synoptic Gospels”). The main way John goes about teaching us about the Eucharist is through chapter 6 (what is called the “Bread of Life Discourse”). So, over the course of these five weeks every three years, we make a mini-retreat on the topic of the Eucharist, which is certainly a worthwhile subject.

So, what happens this week in John 6:1-15? This is the story of the “feeding of the five thousand” (which, interestingly, is one of the only stories about Jesus recorded in all four of the Gospels). This story is drenched in Eucharistic overtones, if we look at it closely.

The very first verses tell us that “Jesus went across the Sea of Galilee” and that “a large crowd followed Him.” So there’s something magnetic about Jesus. The people want to follow Him and to be with Him. It reminds me of the words of the Third Eucharistic Prayer: “You never cease to gather a people to Yourself, so that, from the rising of the sun to its setting, a pure sacrifice may be offered to Your name.” Jesus is always gathering us to Himself.

Then what? Jesus wants to feed the people, but they only have “five barley loaves and two fish.” That is all they have, and they don’t know what to do with it. So they give it to Jesus. In much the same way, the faithful gather for Mass with nothing but a bunch of hosts made from unleavened bread and some basic wine. They usually sit on a little table towards the back of the church, waiting to be brought forward in procession. What do we do with them? We give them to the priest, who stands in the place of Christ and, at the offertory, offers the meager bread and wine to become something more.

Then what? John tells us that “Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed them.” We do the very same thing in every Mass. The priest “takes” the bread, he “gives thanks” over it, he “breaks” it during the Lamb of God, and then he “distributes” the Eucharist to those who are present. Take, bless, break, give: that’s the rhythm of the Eucharist! The people receive and have their fill.

Next, the Lord tells His disciples to “gather the fragments left over.” We do that, too, at every Mass. The remaining consecrated hosts are gathered together and placed into the tabernacle. The Eucharist is reserved there to be taken to the sick and for our prayer and adoration as we make visits throughout the day or week.

This Gospel passage is, indeed, drenched with Eucharistic overtones. What Jesus did that day was a tremendous miracle, and it was a clear foreshadowing of the Sacrament He would later establish the night before He died. We’re going to read the rest of this chapter over the next four weeks as we make our mini-retreat on the Eucharist. Maybe it would be a good idea, with the extra time we have in the summer lull, to sit down and read the chapter straight through. It would take 10 minutes, and it would put John’s theology of the Eucharist in perspective for us. Consider it your summer homework for this week: bust out your Bible, dust it off, and read John chapter 6.

When we read the Word of God, just like when we receive Him in the Eucharist, we have something to chew on. The Lord allows us to have our fill.

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Filed Under: Articles Last Updated: January 1, 2020

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Fr. David Friel

Ordained in 2011, Father Friel is a priest of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and serves as Director of Liturgy at Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary. —(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

“We know that originally the offertories of the repertoire included a series of verses, just like the introit and the communion, but generally more ornate. Many of these are musical compositions of great beauty. They quickly fell into disuse, and we find them only in the most ancient manuscripts. The only remaining trace of this older arrangement in our present-day liturgy is that of the offertory of the Requiem Mass.”

— Dom Joseph Gajard (1956)

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up