Please correct any misunderstandings I may have had. Is this now the norm for celebrating the NO Mass?
Not in my experience.
Maybe in Albany but not here.
And this is so true...
>>Like most Catholics, my mother has never read the GIRM nor is she interested in learning about what constitutes a valid or even licit liturgy. <<
And while you’re at it, say a few prayers for the poor schmucks like myself who don’t have any choice (save a 3 hour drive) and must put up with this all the time. At least you didn’t have to witness any liturgical dance!!
“Is this now the norm for celebrating the NO Mass?”
In my experience the norm is whatever the “presiding” padre wants to do.
Hula dancers, clowns, mariachis, armies of “Eucharistic ministers”, laymen giving sermons - anything goes.
Except of course the Traditional Latin Mass. The only Mass, which I have ever seen our Archbishop criticize, is the indult Mass authorized by one of his predecessors.
In one of last years issues of the “Catholic”Sentinel, the archbishop writes:
“ ...A number of people thanked me for making the Tridentine rite available in this archdiocese and asked that it become even more available here in western Oregon. That request unsettles me but I shall not dismiss it without prayer and reflection.
Perhaps both rites will continue to serve the needs of the church for many years to come, but challenges remain. Those who espouse the Tridentine rite must seek ways to provide a richer variety of proclamations from Sacred Scripture, particularly from the Old Testament, which are practically nonexistent in the Sunday Tridentine rite.
Furthermore, enhanced participation of the faithful both in word and song must be given serious attention...”
This is of course mild as compared to his off the record verbal comments.
Yes, you are correct. A couple of years ago, I asked my former TLM priest a similar question. We have both the TLM and the NO at our parish. We have a couple of TLM attendees who question the validity of the consecration of the NO Hosts reserved in the tabernacle. I asked my priest that if for any reason that unconsecrated hosts were in the tabernacle, would they be consecrated when he said the words of consecration? His reply was no, the hosts must be on the altar in front of him for the consecration to occur.
Since none of these 6 cups was removed from the Tabernacle, then they are not left over from a previous Mass ... correct? What the heck!!!
It is hard to say one way or the other. Some parishes have another tabernacle in the sacristy or a side chapel. Though usually the tabernacle in the sanctuary is not used if another tabernacle is being used elsewhere.
The only charitable explaination that I can think of is that there was so many Hosts and so much Wine consecrated at a previous Mass that it could not be contained in the main tabernacle. Therefore the consecrated Elements were reserved in another tabernacle or someplace safe and under lock and key.
I know of a parish that has a Perpetual Adoration Chapel. At the Sunday Masses (5) just before Holy Communion either the Deacon or the EMHC would go to the chapel to obtain the ciborium of Hosts. After Holy Communion, the ciborium would be returned to the chapel and placed, exposed next to the monstrance, under the watch of the adorers present. At the final Mass of the day, after Holy Communion, the remaining consecrated Hosts would be placed in the tabernacle for Viaticum.
Finally, there is the kooky idea that the stupid laity get very confused and disturbed because Christ is present on the Altar, present in the Word, present in our song and present in the assembly. And if He is present in the tabernacle, well the laity can't handle that. Why the poor dears will be so addled due to the confusion of playing Where's Waldo, er , I mean where's Christ that they will be permanently brain damaged.
BTW, welcome to the club of religious fanatacism. My parents think the same of me.
85. It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the priest himself is bound to do, receive the Lord's Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they partake of the chalice (cf. below, no. 283), so that even by means of the signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated.73
73. Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium, On the worship of the Eucharist, 25 May 1967, nos. 31, 32; Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction Immensae caritatis, 29 January 1973, no. 2: AAS 65 (1973), pp. 267-268.
It would be interesting to have the explanation from the pastor about your questions. Gee, Father, we're a little confused.
About the corporal, chalice, paten and purificator, the GIRM really doesn't specify the person to place them on the altar:
73. At the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist the gifts, which will become Christ's Body and Blood, are brought to the altar. First, the altar, the Lord's table, which is the center of the whole Liturgy of the Eucharist,70 is prepared by placing on it the corporal, purificator, Missal, and chalice (unless the chalice is prepared at the credence table).
That section also says something about including the monetary offerings with the gifts. I think we had a thread a few weeks ago when someone was expressing outrage over that - not worshipping God and mammon was the poor soul's concern about the filthy lucre accompanying the bread and wine.
...It is well also that money or other gifts for the poor or for the Church, brought by the faithful or collected in the church, should be received. These are to be put in a suitable place but away from the eucharistic table.
Sloppy.