• 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

The “Children’s Liturgy of the Word”

Fr. David Friel · July 13, 2014

FEW YEARS AGO, when I was a transitional deacon, I was assisting at a Mass with school children present. As the deacon, it was my role to proclaim the Gospel. Before Mass began, the priest forewarned me that we would be using the Lectionary for Masses with Children (LMC). The Gospel text was from Mark, chapter 14, where Jesus gives instructions for how to prepare for the Passover. As I looked over the text, I was stunned by the first line: “It was the first day of the Feast of Thin Bread.” I have been hesitant about the LMC ever since that moment.

In addition to the LMC, many parishes have the practice of providing a “Children’s Liturgy of the Word” (CLOW) at one or more Masses. This is done by dismissing children after the Collect and before the First Reading to a separate space, where they generally read from the LMC and engage in assorted other activities (Q&A, coloring, etc.) until returning to the church at the conclusion of the general intercessions.

The volunteers I have known in various parishes who have been involved in the CLOW are, to a person, terrific and faithful people with the best of intentions. I share their desire (intensely so) to “reach” young people with the Gospel and to help them become real disciples. Nevertheless, over time, I have grown more and more concerned by this common practice, because I am not sure that it accomplishes the desired end. Does the CLOW really help to form young people in their Catholic faith? Is this something that should be encouraged?

Here I shall present eight reasons why parish leaders might reconsider the usefulness of the “Children’s Liturgy of the Word.”

Reason 1: The corny send-off rituals & banal music that accompany the children’s exit
Almost universally, the ritual that facilitates the departure of those involved in the CLOW is shoddy in form. Very often, it is accompanied by some sort of saccharine ditty that functions, more than anything, to cover the noise of the children exiting their pews.

Regarding the ritual, the Introduction to the LMC provides two sample options for how the priest celebrant might dismiss those participating in the CLOW. This is the text of sample option A:

Receive this book of readings and proclaim God’s word faithfully to the children entrusted to your care. (#8)

In reality, though, the children are not entrusted to the care of the CLOW leader. In the ecclesial realm, the language of being “entrusted to the care” of a person always refers to the spiritual relationship of a bishop toward his flock or of a pastor to his people. That relationship of trust is not something that belongs to the priest in such a way that he can give it away or simply deputize a lay leader to take his place. It is something integrally bound up with his role as a sacred minister.

Reason 2: Children aren’t learning the rhythm of the liturgy
According to the Introduction to the LMC:

In adapting the liturgy for use with children, the Church’s goal is to nourish their faith and lead them to “active, conscious, and authentic” participation in the worship of the whole assembly, but not to establish a different rite for children. (#11)

It is good to read what the intention is and is not, but does this conform to the practical reality?

The liturgy has a remarkable way of forming us, particularly when experienced regularly. Similar things happen outside the liturgy, too. Take, for instance, the beginning of a school year. On Day 1, a first-grade teacher trying to take the class down the hall to the lunchroom will have tremendous difficulty. Explaining the meaning of expectations like “double-file line” and “quietly” is likely to be an exasperating process.

After a couple of weeks, though, once the children get into the rhythm of how things are done at school, it becomes an easy task to take them to the lunchroom. In fact, it almost becomes second nature. Similarly, if a child comes to Mass every Sunday, by the time he or she is preparing for First Holy Communion, the rhythm of the Mass will be second nature. The CLOW can disrupt this natural learning process.

Speaking of First Communion, what is the appropriate age for those participating in the CLOW?

The hearers of the Word for whom this work [the LMC] is primarily intended are children of elementary grades (preadolescents). (#15)

This is a wide age range, to be sure. It would seem worthwhile to establish an upper age limit as a means of narrowing the invitation to participate in the CLOW. At the very least, once a child has been judged old enough to receive the Blessed Sacrament, shouldn’t that same child also be judged old enough to attend Mass with the whole assembly?

Reason 3: Leaders aren’t attending Mass
For the one who coordinates or leads the CLOW, a legitimate question arises as to whether he or she fulfills the Sunday obligation. How likely, though, is the CLOW leader to attend a separate Mass? No one is exempt from the need to be fed at the table of God’s Word, so why are the spiritual needs of CLOW leaders so often overlooked or neglected?

Reason 4: Families aren’t attending Mass together
The Introduction to the LMC states:

Although the Church permits the Liturgy of the Word to be celebrated in a place apart from the main Sunday assembly, it seeks to protect and foster the domestic church, which is the Christian family. (#14)

This seems to me to be an admission of an obvious problem with the CLOW system. This admission, however, does nothing at a practical level to remedy the issue. How can we claim to “protect and foster the domestic church” while absconding to a separate room with the youngest members of the family for half of the Mass?

Reason 5: Priests lose the chance to preach to children
Participants in the CLOW do not return to the main assembly until the conclusion of the Liturgy of the Word, at the end of the General Intercessions. As such, they are excluded from the benefit of the weekly Sunday homily.

As a young priest, myself, I am always seeking opportunities to reach out to young parishioners and share the Gospel with them. For the many Catholics who do not attend Mass, the only opportunities a priest gets can come in unusual places: on the basketball court, out in the neighborhood, at the parish carnival, etc. Is it unreasonable for a priest to expect that during the Sunday liturgy in the church, at least, he will have an opportunity to reach his youngest parishioners?

As spiritual fathers, priests have a responsibility to preach the Gospel to all members of their congregation, not just those of a certain age; similarly, as members of the flock of Christ, children have a responsibility to grow in wisdom, age, and grace, with the assistance of their parents, godparents, priests, and others.

Reason 6: Unsuitability of the Environment
The Second Vatican Council teaches that Christ “is present in His Word, since it is He, Himself, Who speaks when the holy Scriptures are read in the Church” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, #7). Indeed, we believe that the Lord is no less present in His Word than in the Eucharist. So the space in which we celebrate the Liturgy of the Word matters, just as the location of the Liturgy of the Eucharist matters.

Very often, the CLOW is relegated to a vestibule, spare classroom, or glorified closet. I’ve even seen it in a stairwell. Almost no one would suggest that the parish community celebrate the Liturgy of the Eucharist in such a setting, so why is this considered sufficient for the CLOW?

Admirably, the LMC expresses an interest in including sacred music within the context of the CLOW:

The Eucharistic liturgy requires the full use of music, which is integral to the whole celebration, including the proclamation of the Word of God. The responsorial psalm is normally sung by a cantor with the assembly singing the refrain. The gospel acclamation must always be sung. A sung response to the petitions of the general intercessions can enhance participation.

This, I suspect, is not a fair description of a typical parish’s CLOW. Unfortunately, given the constraints of the physical environment, it would be difficult in most situations to respect these norms.

Reason 7: The Lectionary for Masses with Children is a problem
The Introduction to the LMC proclaims:

This Lectionary for Masses with Children adheres as closely as possible to the selection and arrangement of readings for Sundays, solemnities, and feasts of the Lord in the Lectionary for Mass, while adapting them to the needs and capacities of children.

In the process of creating the children’s Lectionary, I would contend that the “capacities” of children may have been underestimated.

The translation issues related to the LMC are innumerable. Some passages are condescending, others unintelligible, and still others pedantic. In order to be concise, we shall treat only one specific example here. I began this post with a story about proclaiming the Gospel at a Mass with school children. I was stunned to find in the first line reference to “the Feast of Thin Bread.” What does this even mean?

The Feast of Unleavened Bread is the Jewish commemoration of the evening after Passover, when the Lord instructed the Hebrew people to flee from Egypt quickly. The meaning behind the feast concerns the speed with which the Hebrews had to pack and leave, which lead them to skip the leavening process. That unleavened bread is thin is an irrelevant consequence (an “accident,” so to speak), whereas the fact that the bread is unleavened is eminently germane to the story (the “substance”).

Moreover, what is to be gained by using the phrase “Feast of Thin Bread”? I see no advantage to the phrase. Are we to believe that children will “understand” that expression better? On the other hand, what is lost is familiarity with an elemental piece of scriptural vocabulary, the iconic term, “Feast of Unleavened Bread.” How does one build up scriptural vocabulary? Certainly not through disuse or avoidance.

Is this picayune? Perhaps, but it is not the only translation issue in the LMC.

Reason 8: The entropic explosion of children returning to their pews at the offertory
When it comes time for the children to return to the main assembly, it is impossible for the leader of the group to escort each child back to his or her family. The result, in most parishes, is that the children explode unchecked through the side door and run irreverently back to their pews. This frenetic motion disrupts the reflective spirit that ought to pervade the offertory.

The offertory, after all, is not simply a “halftime” or an “intermission.” It is, rather, the time during which all present—priest and people (both young & old)—ought to be prayerfully uniting themselves to the sacrifice about to be offered. Is full, active, conscious participation in the offertory helped or hindered by the boisterous reemergence of the CLOW participants in most parishes?

The Children’s Liturgy of the Word, I concede, can be put into practice with varying degrees of success and propriety. Even when celebrated in ideal conditions with true respect for the liturgical norms, however, I am not convinced that the CLOW better serves young Catholics than the regular worship of the parish community.

I am aware of the pedagogy that promotes various methods for reaching the different “ages & stages” of children. All of that is good, but does it trump all other factors? Moreover, “ages & stages” do not end with adolescence, so what about young adults, those in middle age, seniors, and widows/widowers? No one has suggested a separate Liturgy of the Word celebration tailored to them. In reality, experiencing the whole Mass in a pew together with their families may be the best pedagogical method for handing on the faith to children.

While I am serious about the need for questioning the future of the “Children’s Liturgy of the Word,” it is also possible to maintain a sense of humor. Thus, I encourage you to click here for a satirical take on the matter.

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

Filed Under: Articles, Featured Tagged With: Liturgical Abuse, Novus Ordo Lectionary, Passing on Tradition, reverent and welcoming Last Updated: November 30, 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

“Many other things most justly keep me in the bosom [of the Catholic Church]. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate.”

— Saint Augustine (Epistle against Manichaeus)

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