Posted on 01/23/2007 5:21:58 PM PST by NYer
I have a similar question about that too. During our Saturday Vigil Mass, it is common to have baptisms in the Mass itself (instead of a separate practice).
Is this bad?
If it's not, I guess it's still bad that we substitute the Creed for the Baptismal promises, since the answer to that question above (about omitting the Creed) seems pretty absolute.
Anyone know?
"###The crossing of the forehead, lips, and heart..."###
We are to absorb the Gospel with our mind, preach it with our lips and have it in our hearts.
"During the recitation of the Creed, all are required to bow or kneel during the lines "by the power of the Holy Spirit..."
The bow is on an 'ordinary' Sunday Mass and the kneeling is Christmas, and various Masses during lent, which no one does except when told by the priest, I believe.
we are not being monkeys, there is a reason we do it. Please read this, especially the second paragraph. --
While the assembly prepares, the deacon asks the celebrant for a blessing before he proclaims the Gospel. Absent a deacon, the priest will ready himself by inaudibly praying: "Almighty God, cleanse my heart and my lips that I may worthily proclaim your Gospel." Your parish may have a Book of the Gospels. This book, usually decorated more ornately than the Lectionary, may be carried in procession to the ambo and may also be incensed in reverence.
The deacon or priest then announces the reading. We answer in gratitude and praise for the Good News, "Glory to you, O Lord!" We make three small signs of the cross on the forehead, mouth and heart which embody the prayer: "May the word of God be on my mind, in my words and in my heart" as we aspire to make ourselves one with the word of God. (The new Roman Missal has revived this gesture once again for all to do.)
The deacon or celebrant then proclaims the Gospel and ends with an acclamation, "The Gospel of the Lord." The assembly responds, "Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ!" The priest or deacon then kisses the book in a sign of reverence and prays another inaudible prayer: "Through the words of the Gospel may our sins be washed away."
http://www.archden.org/dcr/archive/20021106/2002110601ab.htm
CONGREGATIO CULTO DIVINO ET DISCIPLINA SACRAMENTORUM
Prot. n. 468/05/L
Rome, 12 October 2006
Your Excellency,
I refer to your letters of 9 March 2005 and 7 March 2006, in which, in the name of the Conference of Bishops of which you are President, you requested a renewal of the indult for extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to purify the sacred vessels after Mass, where there are not enough priests or deacons to purify a large number of chalices that might be used at Mass.
I have put the whole matter before the Holy Father in an audience which he granted me on 9 June 2006, and received instructions to reply as follows:
1. There is no doubt that "the sign of Communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 281; Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 390).
2. Sometimes, however, the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 102). intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law
of the Roman Rite.
3. Catechesis of the people is important regarding the teaching of the Council of Trent that Christ is
fully present under each of the species. Communion under the species of the bread alone, as a consequence, makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace (cf. Denzinger-Schônmetzer, no. 1729; General Instruction of the Roman Missal, nos. 11, 282).
"For pastoral reasons", therefore, "this manner of receiving Communion has been legitimately established as the
most common form in the Latin rite" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1390).
4. Paragraph 279 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal directs that the sacred vessels are to be purified by the priest, the deacon or an instituted acolyte. The status of this text as legislation has recently been clarified by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. It does not seem feasible, therefore, for the Congregation to grant the requested indult from this directive in the
general law of the Latin Church.
5. This letter is therefore a request to the members of the Bishops' Conference of the United Status of America to prepare the necessary explanations and catechetical materials for your clergy and people so that henceforth the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 279, as found in the editio typicatia of the Roman Missal, will be observed throughout its territories.
With the expression of my esteem and fraternal greetings, I remain,
Your Excellency,
Devotedly yours in Christ,
+Francis Cardinal Arinze
Monsignor Mario Marini Prefect Under-Secretary
"Mouthing the words," I suppose, if one can not read to himself without his lips moving, is OK. It indicates one is paying attention, at least.
But encouraging the entire congregation to join in with the priest in saying aloud parts of the Mass specifically proper to the priest is a different animal altogether. If we're all saying the words, why do we need a priest? If there is no difference between me saying something and a priest saying it, who needs a priest?
That is the faux "egalitarian" line of thinking behind such "innovations." It is set on destroying the distinction between priest and layman.
But you bring me to something that is fast becoming a pet peeve of mine. The crossing of the forehead, lips, and heart before the Priest or Deacon reads the Gospel. I used to think it was a fine thing to do, but I read a thread a while back that said it was nothing but aping the reader like a monkey. That made sense to me because why would I cross MY lips when somebody else is about to read. So, I cross myself while everybody else does the whole pantomime. I just wonder if it is required to do that.
This may indeed be a case where "aping" happened, but I see nothing wrong with asking for Christ to be "on your lips" even if you are not presently speaking. It is one thing for a spontaneous act of pious imitation to become part of the liturgy through years of practice.
This is why liturgy is so important. You have to nip abberent practices in the bud, or they will grow to become a norm.
Chalices are not supposed to be made of breakable material.
Is there a renewal of baptismal promises, which the congregation is asked to participate?
Thank you and God bless you.
My parish has a 'Book of the Gospels' which is carried down the aisle and laid on the middle of the altar. It is then carried to the ambo by the priest with two altar servers carrying candles.
I watch EWTN's Mass every night and not knowing Latin, would you know the Latin for "The Gospel of the Lord." To me it sounds like Verboom Domini?
Baptism is the initiation of a new member of Christ's Church. It's not a private event by its nature.
If it's not, I guess it's still bad that we substitute the Creed for the Baptismal promises, since the answer to that question above (about omitting the Creed) seems pretty absolute.
In my experience, the Baptismal promises includes a Q&A version of the Creed.
Verbum Domini - very close
Then I would ask your pastor about it.
When I moved to my parish a few years ago the priests were using ceramic chalices. I visited a few others in the area and they were all into ceramic or glass. I emailed the Bishop's office and the response was positive. The changes were made to gold and silver (metal) in these Churches. I even chipped in for a new one for my parish.
Also, the priest in my parish had the bad habit of walking the center aisle during his homilies. He does not do that any more.
Oh, that reminds me... the Pastor of the church I used to go to said one day in the homily that they had received an instruction to stop using glass a while back and they were supposed to break and grind the glass in their chalicem. He said he did not do that, but merely stored them away based on his experience with Rome changing its mind.
I thought the Priest blessing the Deacon was a representation of Christ sending His apostles out to preach the Word to the nations.
In all my memory growing up, and in my experience going to my (admittedly orthodox) church out here in California, we sat or kneeled during the period when you're waiting to get in line to go to Communion.
I always used this time to pray and reflect - and to decide if it was indeed right for me to even receive Communion, given what my life was like at the time. (Yes, I know, go to confession, but still, literally receiving the Lord into me when I'm acting like an ass six days out of the week, or not really having the faith, just seemed to be the wrong thing to do.)
During this time, there was/is music going on in the background, and maybe a soloist is singing a hymn. Between the reflection, prayer, and background music, it was one of my most cherished times in the Mass.
Now, when I go back to Michigan (Dioceses of Lansing) where I grew up, the entire congregation stands up and sings some loud processional while people are receiving Communion. I find this really irritating, as with the standing (and thus raising of the kneelers) and all the noise, it makes it impossible to reflect and pray both before and after I receive communion. Given just what Communion is to true Catholic believers, I think it's entirely appropriate to pray and reflect at that time.
I've been told that parishoners are still allowed to kneel and sit during this period, if they insist (cough), but with everyone standing up and putting the kneelers up, it makes it practically impossible. Last time I tried to politely suggest to a priest back in Michigan the concept of reserving some pews to those who like to kneel during this part of the Mass, I got barked at before the sentence could even finish leaving my mouth.
So, fellow Catholic FReepers of an orthodox bent, what's the story here? Do you all stand and sing during Communion, making it a loud processional? Or do you allow people to kneel and pray? What's the official Vatican rule? And am I the only one in this situation? Thanks.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/KNEELING.TXT
long story short -- you have the right, the laudable right to kneel. I hate to say it, but that priest sounds like a jerk.
that's a good thought too
I don't know if it's what's intended, but every time I see him do it that's what I think of. And it's theologically sound since the Priest represents Christ to the People.
My former piskie rector had a placque in his pulpit that said simply "Sir, we wish to see Jesus" to remind him that he was supposed to be channeling Him.
Course this guy also liked to parade himself around the nave during his 45 minute, utterly self-indulgent sermons... People got so mad at him that he settled for perching himself on the third step of the steps to the sanctuary. I don't know why he got so down on preaching from the pulpit.
Sir, we wish to see Jesus. And we wish to see the Preacher Preach from the Pulpit. What's so hard about that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.