Are these practices ok during the Mass?

[Belfarmer]

We have a new young priest who was posted to our parish in June. He has started some new practices which contradict what past pastors have told me was required by the GIRM. At the risk of being overly scrupulous, and truly wishing to learn more about the Holy Mass, I was wondering if these are ok or if I am misreading the GIRM.

1.Can the priest walk around the church front to back during the Homily? GIRM #136

2.Can the reader present an introduction to the Mass (prepared by the priest) before the entrance procession? GIRM #31, and #194-198

3.Can two 3 candle candelabras and a two foot tall cross (facing toward the priest) be centered on the front mensa of the altar and flowers placed on tall floor pedestals in front of the altar at each corner resulting in blocking the view of the altar from the pews? GIRM #305-308 and USCCB Committee of the Liturgy Chapter Two - Other Ritual Furnishings “The Cross” #113-115

Even if I am technically correct in my understanding of the GIRM relative to any of the above, is it worth bringing these issues up to my parish priest? Thanks in advance for your ideas.

 

[John_Lilburne]

A brief reply on (2) being OK.

The lay person is doing the role of a commentator.

From the 2002 General Introduction to the Roman Missal (GIRM) which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“105 … b. The commentator, who provides the faithful, when appropriate, with brief explanations and commentaries with the purpose of introducing them to the celebration and preparing them to understand it better. The commentator’s remarks must be meticulously prepared and clear though brief. In performing this function the commentator stands in an appropriate place facing the faithful, but not at the ambo.”

 

[palmas85]

We have a new young priest who was posted to our parish in June. He has started some new practices which contradict what past pastors have told me was required by the GIRM. At the risk of being overly scrupulous, and truly wishing to learn more about the Holy Mass, I was wondering if these are ok or if I am misreading the GIRM.

1.Can the priest walk around the church front to back during the Homily? GIRM #136

2.Can the reader present an introduction to the Mass (prepared by the priest) before the entrance procession? GIRM #31, and #194-198

3.Can two 3 candle candelabras and a two foot tall cross (facing toward the priest) be centered on the front mensa of the altar and flowers placed on tall floor pedestals in front of the altar at each corner resulting in blocking the view of the altar from the pews? GIRM #305-308 and USCCB Committee of the Liturgy Chapter Two - Other Ritual Furnishings “The Cross” #113-115

Even if I am technically correct in my understanding of the GIRM relative to any of the above, is it worth bringing these issues up to my parish priest? Thanks in advance for your ideas.

As far as I know there is nothing wrong with having either a Crucifix or candlesticks on the altar and in fact, I don’t see why anyone would object to either of them Many, many Churches have them. As far as flowers, again I see no problem unless they have the Altar completely obscured from view, which I doubt. A commentator is allowed although restricted as to what he can and cannot do. As far as the Priest ranging throughout the congregation during his homily, well thats depends. I believe that the GIRM requires that the Homily be delivered from the Ambo or from some other suitable place. Is walking amidst the congregation a suitable place, I don’t know. While not my idea of the correct thing to do, I guess it could be all right.

Your Pastor does appear to be all over the board though with both old and new practices in his repertoire.

 

[John_Lilburne]

On walking around the Church for the homily, no, not permitted.

From the 2002 General Introduction to the Roman Missal (GIRM) which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :

“136. The priest, standing at the chair or at the ambo itself or, when appropriate, in another suitable place, gives the homily. …”

It says “standing” rather than walking. There is a choice of place, but is clearly singular – one place – not plural. It does not have “other suitable places”.

It is also intended to be in the sanctuary. From the GIRM: “295. The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, where the word of God is proclaimed, and where the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers exercise their offices. …”.

On the altar, six candles and a crucifix are permitted. The issue is whether there is compliance with, from the GIRM:

“307. The candles, which are required at every liturgical service out of reverence and on account of the festiveness of the celebration (cf. above, no. 117), are to be appropriately placed either on or around the altar in a way suited to the design of the altar and the sanctuary so that the whole may be well balanced and not interfere with the faithful’s **clear view of what takes place at the altar or what is placed on it. **
308. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation.”

I suppose any candle or crucifix is going to block some view of something for someone. So there will be a subjective assessment of how much blockage is too much.

I think is reasonable to say if the crucified Christ is facing the priest, rather than the people there is failure to comply with it being “clearly visible to the assembled congregation”.

Without knowing the situation it is difficult to give advice about whether or how to approach the priest about these issues.

 

[CRW]

I think is reasonable to say if the crucified Christ is facing the priest, rather than the people there is failure to comply with it being “clearly visible to the assembled congregation”.

Have you notice that EWTN has a crucified Christ facing the priest and people on the altar. This is the first double I have ever seen but I do like it.

 

[Belfarmer]

First, thank you for your replies. They are very helpful. I should have explained that I in no way intend a game of “Gotcha” with our pastor but rather am truly interested in learning more about the Holy Mass. I grew up in the silly 70’s and have seen a number of strange practices in the celebration of the Mass but at the time I really was ignorant of what was proper. So the past few years I have been studying my faith, reading the GIRM, and am using this board to help my progress.
Right now I get the impression that there are much larger fish to fry, (I think of that phrase as I am working at our KC fish fry tonight), so I will likely not bring this up to our pastor.

Thanks again.

 

[Belfarmer]

Would this found at the USCCB Committee on the Liturgy Chapter Two at usccb.org/liturgy/lschaptertwo.shtml
support a concern about this arrangement on the altar?

Other Ritual Furnishings

114 Since a crucifix placed on the altar and large enough to be seen by the congregation might well obstruct the view of the action taking place on the altar, other alternatives may be more appropriate. The crucifix may be suspended over the altar or affixed to the sanctuary wall.

 

[palmas85]

Would this found at the USCCB Committee on the Liturgy Chapter Two at usccb.org/liturgy/lschaptertwo.shtml
support a concern about this arrangement on the altar?

Other Ritual Furnishings

114 Since a crucifix placed on the altar and large enough to be seen by the congregation might well obstruct the view of the action taking place on the altar, other alternatives may be more appropriate. The crucifix may be suspended over the altar or affixed to the sanctuary wall.

No. It merely offers an uption thats all. At the risk of sounding accusatory, what is your objection to having the crucifix om the altar? It does seem to bother you a bit… I know there are those who advocate absolutely nothing on the altar at all, minimalists I guess you would call them, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a crucifix there.

Why does it concern you so much? In fact, your concern and anxiety over the crucifix. seem to reflect the views of our separated brethren the Protestants, who always objected to a crucifix anywhere, more than those of a Catholic.

 

[Cincy]

A different question
entrance song was the words "O come emmanuel " repeated.
song stopped for opening prayer by priest the song resumes. during song deason syas Kryie. song stops and first reading begins.

 

[John_Lilburne]

A different question
entrance song was the words "O come emmanuel " repeated.
song stopped for opening prayer by priest the song resumes. during song deason syas Kryie. song stops and first reading begins.

It is wrong, not following the required order, which is:
Entrance Song
Sign of the Cross and Greeting
Kyrie
Opening Prayer
First Reading

There are other options, but if there is the Kyrie, that order is required.

The Kyrie needs to be separate, rather than having the Kyrie sung and another song at the same time.

 

[Belfarmer]

No. It merely offers an uption thats all. At the risk of sounding accusatory, what is your objection to having the crucifix om the altar? It does seem to bother you a bit… I know there are those who advocate absolutely nothing on the altar at all, minimalists I guess you would call them, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a crucifix there.

Why does it concern you so much? In fact, your concern and anxiety over the crucifix. seem to reflect the views of our separated brethren the Protestants, who always objected to a crucifix anywhere, more than those of a Catholic.

I have a crucifix in each room of my house and have no problem with one. First I was told by a past pastor of our parish that nothing tall can be centered on the front of the altar which would block the view of the faithful. Thus he placed a crucifix flat on the altar in front of him with the candles on each corner. I should also note that our church has a large crucifix on the wall behind the altar as well as one which is carried in during the processional. I was checking on this forum as I know our previous pastor could be mistaken and also this conversation occurred well before the 2002 GIRM came out.

I also have a personal devotion during the Eucharistic Prayer where I stare intently at the bread and wine as it is changed to the body and blood of our Lord. Frankly, the current placement of the flowers, candles and crucifix makes that private devotion difficult. So as long as the current GIRM has no problem with the altar arrangement, I will just change my private devotion. I assure you that I am not coming from any sort of protestant perspective on this issue.

 

[A2SciTeach]

I went to a Mass this weekend (not my normal parish) where the entrance hymn consisted of the people singing a repetitious “come Emmanuel” while the cantor sang some verses. When the procession reached the altar, the singing continued. The priest did not begin with the Sign of the Cross or the greeting - he went straight to the Penitential Rite which was said while the organ continued playing softly in the background. IT WAS WEIRD! I’d say things went downhill from there.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

1. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation."

I suppose any candle or crucifix is going to block some view of something for someone. So there will be a subjective assessment of how much blockage is too much.

I think is reasonable to say if the crucified Christ is facing the priest, rather than the people there is failure to comply with it

I believe “cross” is the antecedent of that “it” that must be clearly visible. So the technicality would be that the wording requires the cross to be visible, not necessarily the corpus. Of course, I don’t know the Latin, so maybe there’s a grammatical trick that would affect that…

 

[palmas85]

I have a crucifix in each room of my house and have no problem with one. First I was told by a past pastor of our parish that nothing tall can be centered on the front of the altar which would block the view of the faithful. Thus he placed a crucifix flat on the altar in front of him with the candles on each corner. I should also note that our church has a large crucifix on the wall behind the altar as well as one which is carried in during the processional. I was checking on this forum as I know our previous pastor could be mistaken and also this conversation occurred well before the 2002 GIRM came out.

I also have a personal devotion during the Eucharistic Prayer where I stare intently at the bread and wine as it is changed to the body and blood of our Lord. Frankly, the current placement of the flowers, candles and crucifix makes that private devotion difficult. So as long as the current GIRM has no problem with the altar arrangement, I will just change my private devotion. I assure you that I am not coming from any sort of protestant perspective on this issue.

Just wondering. The only people I’ve seen that were concerned over a Crucufix on the Altar were those coming from the minimalist bare table perspective. They also quite often disapprove of Gold Chalices and Ciborums etc and prefer glass or plastic pitchers and wicker baskets or clay bowls instead.

Concerning your devotion though I do have a question.

What would you do if the Priest decided to celebrate the Mass ad orientem or facing the altar rather than the congregation? It is not prohibited, and in fact could be argued that is the way it is supposed to be done. The rubrics actually do call for the Priest to face the people at certain times in the Mass leaving the possibility open that at other times he can or should face away from them. Even though most Priests do celebrate the Mass facing the people there is no accepted Church law that requires it. Various Bishops have enacted their own local legislation concerning it, but in the eyes of the Universal Church ad orientem still appears to be the approved, official way and facing the people an option albeit a popular one.

I understand your devotion but it could be a problem if you ever encounter a truly orthodox Priest who celebrates ad orientem.

 

[Belfarmer]

Just wondering. The only people I’ve seen that were concerned over a Crucufix on the Altar were those coming from the minimalist bare table perspective. They also quite often disapprove of Gold Chalices and Ciborums etc and prefer glass or plastic pitchers and wicker baskets or clay bowls instead.

Concerning your devotion though I do have a question.

What would you do if the Priest decided to celebrate the Mass ad orientem or facing the altar rather than the congregation? It is not prohibited, and in fact could be argued that is the way it is supposed to be done. The rubrics actually do call for the Priest to face the people at certain times in the Mass leaving the possibility open that at other times he can or should face away from them. Even though most Priests do celebrate the Mass facing the people there is no accepted Church law that requires it. Various Bishops have enacted their own local legislation concerning it, but in the eyes of the Universal Church ad orientem still appears to be the approved, official way and facing the people an option albeit a popular one.

I understand your devotion but it could be a problem if you ever encounter a truly orthodox Priest who celebrates ad orientem.

I had been thinking about just that concern, that is a priest celebrating “ad orientem” and yes, for me, that would not be the ideal but please allow me to explain.

I remember the Latin Rite Mass from my early youth, and in fact, I was of the first class in our parish to learn to serve the Mass in the English. I remember the Latin Mass of my youth as a confusing experience with the priest turned away from the people hiding his actions. My main memory was that Mass is boring and almost scary but I must stay still or I was subject to a trip to the back of church for discipline.

I was there when a new altar was placed in the sanctuary to prepare for the new Mass with the priest facing the people, (my father was an board member at the time), and was subsequently interested to see what the priest was really up to. I was also pleased not to need to learn all the Latin required of a mass server for the Latin Mass.

I grew up comparing the downright confusing Mass of my youth with the English Mass which I learned to love through continued catechesis as I matured. I might add that even my parents who grew up with the Latin greatly appreciated the changes and have said they would never wish to go back.

I agree with the assessment of my parents with one reservation. That the Mass within human ability must be as true to the Churches’ teaching as possible. High school during the silly seventy’s saw in my experience great experimentation with the Mass of which I shutter to think about to this day, (the details of which I think are best left to another post and thread).

I can see how many who didn’t experience the Latin whom did experience the awful Mass experimentation which is occurring to this very day would long for the Latin and the faithfulness Latin represents to the teaching of the church.

Faithfulness to that teaching can also be accomplished in the Vernacular. I think to some extent, that wish by faithful Catholics for the true Mass is fueling the desire to go back to the Latin. While I would definitely attend a Latin Mass as sort of a walk down memory lane, my personal opinion is that I will take a faithfully celebrated Vernacular Mass as my celebration of God’s great gift to us as the norm.

I hope that explains why I would prefer that the priest would face the people. Do you think I am way out there in my thinking?

I forgot to add that I am definitly not a minimalist when it comes to the use of Gold etc. especially as these are called for in the rubrics and in my opinion common sence.

 

[palmas85]

I had been thinking about just that concern, that is a priest celebrating “ad orientem” and yes, for me, that would not be the ideal but please allow me to explain.

I remember the Latin Rite Mass from my early youth, and in fact, I was of the first class in our parish to learn to serve the Mass in the English. I remember the Latin Mass of my youth as a confusing experience with the priest turned away from the people hiding his actions. My main memory was that Mass is boring and almost scary but I must stay still or I was subject to a trip to the back of church for discipline.

I was there when a new altar was placed in the sanctuary to prepare for the new Mass with the priest facing the people, (my father was an board member at the time), and was subsequently interested to see what the priest was really up to. I was also pleased not to need to learn all the Latin required of a mass server for the Latin Mass.

I grew up comparing the downright confusing Mass of my youth with the English Mass which I learned to love through continued catechesis as I matured. I might add that even my parents who grew up with the Latin greatly appreciated the changes and have said they would never wish to go back.

I agree with the assessment of my parents with one reservation. That the Mass within human ability must be as true to the Churches’ teaching as possible. High school during the silly seventy’s saw in my experience great experimentation with the Mass of which I shutter to think about to this day, (the details of which I think are best left to another post and thread).

I can see how many who didn’t experience the Latin whom did experience the awful Mass experimentation which is occurring to this very day would long for the Latin and the faithfulness Latin represents to the teaching of the church.

Faithfulness to that teaching can also be accomplished in the Vernacular. I think to some extent, that wish by faithful Catholics for the true Mass is fueling the desire to go back to the Latin. While I would definitely attend a Latin Mass as sort of a walk down memory lane, my personal opinion is that I will take a faithfully celebrated Vernacular Mass as my celebration of God’s great gift to us as the norm.

I hope that explains why I would prefer that the priest would face the people. ** Do you think I am way out there in my thinking?**

I forgot to add that I am definitly not a minimalist when it comes to the use of Gold etc. especially as these are called for in the rubrics and in my opinion common sence.

Not way out there no. But what I have seen among many people both on these forums and others that I lurk around on as well as in real life, is that a lot of people seem to have doubts about the valdity of the consecration unless they can hear the words and see the Host as it is being done.

I’ve had a lot of pms from several people on this very forum who are terrified and I mean absolutely terrified that if they personally cannot hear and see the consecration then it may be invalid. That to me is puzzling, because having served Mass for a long long time, in the Traditional Mass, I was able to see the Priest pretty clearly and never saw one do anything even the slightest bit improper. So I trust them to do the right thing whether I actually see or hear them.

It does appear that the Church is starting to make slow,halting steps back towards orthodoxy and I was just wondering how that would affect someone to whom the visual and probably audio (name removed by moderator)ut of the Consecration is so important.

 

[Belfarmer]

Not way out there no. But what I have seen among many people both on these forums and others that I lurk around on as well as in real life, is that a lot of people seem to have doubts about the valdity of the consecration unless they can hear the words and see the Host as it is being done.

I’ve had a lot of pms from several people on this very forum who are terrified and I mean absolutely terrified that if they personally cannot hear and see the consecration then it may be invalid. That to me is puzzling, because having served Mass for a long long time, in the Traditional Mass, I was able to see the Priest pretty clearly and never saw one do anything even the slightest bit improper. So I trust them to do the right thing whether I actually see or hear them.

It does appear that the Church is starting to make slow,halting steps back towards orthodoxy and I was just wondering how that would affect someone to whom the visual and probably audio (name removed by moderator)ut of the Consecration is so important.

I understand better now what you are asking and appreciate your response. I personal try to watch the consecration as a private devotional to welcome our Lord to the building at that moment so to speak. I don’t believe it necessary to check every movement of the celebrant to certify orthodoxy. I regret I have seen a number of awful abuses of the Mass in my lifetime and have in the past few years tried to learn a little more about it. Thus the original post which was mostly for my own information on what the GIRM truly says is the mind of the church on those questions. I will admit that the issues raised in the original post are very very minor even if they were improper, compaired to some of the abuses I have seen.

 

[palmas85]

I understand better now what you are asking and appreciate your response. I personal try to watch the consecration as a private devotional to welcome our Lord to the building at that moment so to speak. I don’t believe it necessary to check every movement of the celebrant to certify orthodoxy. I regret I have seen a number of awful abuses of the Mass in my lifetime and have in the past few years tried to learn a little more about it. Thus the original post which was mostly for my own information on what the GIRM truly says is the mind of the church on those questions. I will admit that the issues raised in the original post are very very minor even if they were improper, compaired to some of the abuses I have seen.

Quite true. I still get excited when the moment of Consecration approaches. I think that is one of the reasons that I find the Traditional Mass so appealing, its kind of like Christmas Morning as a child, you don’t know exactly when it going to get there and that anticipation grows and then before you know it, its there. Suddenly, almost surprisingly the Lord has arrived. The wonder and beauty of that sacred moment.

Best Chrismas wishes to you and yours.

 

[Veronica_Anne]

Not way out there no. But what I have seen among many people both on these forums and others that I lurk around on as well as in real life, is that a lot of people seem to have doubts about the valdity of the consecration unless they can hear the words and see the Host as it is being done.

I’ve had a lot of pms from several people on this very forum who are terrified and I mean absolutely terrified that if they personally cannot hear and see the consecration then it may be invalid. That to me is puzzling, because having served Mass for a long long time, in the Traditional Mass, I was able to see the Priest pretty clearly and never saw one do anything even the slightest bit improper. So I trust them to do the right thing whether I actually see or hear them.

It does appear that the Church is starting to make slow,halting steps back towards orthodoxy and I was just wondering how that would affect someone to whom the visual and probably audio (name removed by moderator)ut of the Consecration is so important.

Interesting discussion. I’m one of the ones who remember growing up in the late 50’s and early 60’s when the Mass was in Latin. Found it fascinating to match the words on the left side of the Missal with the drawn picture of the priest raising his hands, holding the Body and then the Blood… and so when hearing the Latin I could match up what I heard with the words in English on the facing page of the Missal.

Reason why the visual and probably audio (name removed by moderator)ut of the Consecration is so important is that we are celebrating Mass along with the priest – it is, after all, liturgy – “work of the people.”

Do not misunderstand what I’m saying here. I am NOT saying that we, the people, are doing what the priest is doing, himself – in persona Christi. Instead, we in the pews are participating in the Mass… not observing it. Hope that makes sense?

 

[palmas85]

Interesting discussion. I’m one of the ones who remember growing up in the late 50’s and early 60’s when the Mass was in Latin. Found it fascinating to match the words on the left side of the Missal with the drawn picture of the priest raising his hands, holding the Body and then the Blood… and so when hearing the Latin I could match up what I heard with the words in English on the facing page of the Missal.

Reason why the visual and probably audio (name removed by moderator)ut of the Consecration is so important is that we are celebrating Mass along with the priest – it is, after all, liturgy – “work of the people.”

Do not misunderstand what I’m saying here. I am NOT saying that we, the people, are doing what the priest is doing, himself – in persona Christi. Instead, we in the pews are participating in the Mass… not observing it. Hope that makes sense?

Well yes, but if you remember the old missals they also said the best way to assist in the Mass was to pray the Mass along with the Priest and I still believe that is the best way. Seeing the Host as it is being consecrated is not in any way necessary to assist in praying with the Priest.

I think it good to remember at this point that even if we have a million of us praying feverently for the consecration, unless we have a Priest there also praying it isn’t going to happen. On the other hand, a Priest can celebrate the Mass physically alone and the transubstantiation will still take place. While it is a truly wonderful thing that we are allowed and encouraged to be present and assisting, in truth our presence is neither needed or required.