Can’t attend Traditional Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matt_Michael
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How do you figure? There really aren’t a lot of ordained individuals at a typical Sunday Mass, maybe 2 or just 1. Here, there is 1 priest and 1 deacon- who assists at the main 10 am mass. I think this is about typical- I don’t think there are all kinds of ordained men out in the pews.
 
How many have you asked? Or has there been a survey of canon lawyers, in which case please show us .the figures…
 
Both of these statements are utterly incorrect.

Extraordinary Minister are termed extraordinary because they are not ordained. That has nothing to do with their employ. The decision of when extraordinary ministers are to be employed is exclusively the domain of the clergy…NOT the laity, in any way, shape or form.

At my age, when I am Presider at a Sunday Mass for the public, I may be able to distribute the Eucharist but also aware that it is not prudent for me to do so. I not infrequently today choose not to do so. I am normally standing for the parts that are prescribed for me to stand…but it has happened that I have had to finish the Mass sitting.

And what the laity think is not of remote interest to me – they must submit themselves in unconditional docility to the authority of my decision and that of the Bishop of the diocese.
 
You speak of canon law and of canon lawyers. Why? This is a matter addressed in liturgical norms…not canon law and the matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments…not the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

Beyond that, the presence of other lay ministers – such as lectors, as the proclamation of the Scriptures is NOT a Presidential function – to be part of the liturgical assembly. Indeed, lectors should be employed regardless of how many clerics are present.
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression the work of canon lawyers was more about church property and marriage tribunals, than details about the function of different ministries in the liturgies.
 
We have in our Church not many attendees at Mass and I see the Eucharistic Ministers almost running to get to the Altar to serve. However, the lines for the Priest and Deacon are somewhat short. The number of them bothers me but if it is ok with Father then I feel it should be ok for me but it does seem weird how they run up there.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
At my age, when I am Presider at a Sunday Mass for the public, I may be able to distribute the Eucharist but also aware that it is not prudent for me to do so.
Click to expand...
I once knew a young and healthy-looking priest who did not distribute communion to anybody but the altar servers. He was strongly criticized by many in the parish for inappropriately using other ministers while “choosing” to step aside. Few sought to understand the reason. I later learned that he suffered from nerve damage in his hand and felt that he was at risk of dropping the host.
 
I did not choose to irritate you. And I apologize for having misread.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
Beyond that, the presence of other lay ministers – such as lectors, as the proclamation of the Scriptures is NOT a Presidential function – to be part of the liturgical assembly. Indeed, lectors should be employed regardless of how many clerics are present.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the gospel must be read by a priest or bishop, unless there happens to be a deacon on the altar. If so, that deacon is the person who should read the gospel.

Is this new? I realize permanent deacons have only been around a few decades, but transitional deacons would have been present before Vatican II, I would think. Did they read the gospel then? I wonder if transitional deacons read the gospel now, if present, at Masses of FSSP, (or SSPX which of course does not follow Church norms).

I wonder if your statements only apply to the Ordinary Form, if the rules are different for EF.
 
At least in the FSSP, lay lectors are never used unless they are seminarians. But transitional deacons do read the gospel is there is one in a parish.
 
At Solemn Masses, deacons read the gospel and subdeacons read the epistle, although priests often play their roles.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
And what the laity think is not of remote interest to me – they must submit themselves in unconditional docility to the authority of my decision and that of the Bishop of the diocese
Click to expand...
That’s a rather extraordinary comment!

Dan
 
acanonlawyer said:
That’s a rather extraordinary comment!
Click to expand...
Really? You think so? In the context in which I wrote the comment above, @acanonlawyer?

As a canon lawyer, you know very well why I said my authority “or that of the Bishop” in the phrase where I spoke of having to sit, at times, during the Liturgy of the Eucharist or even to deliver the homily. For the benefit of non-canonists reading, it is because of Can. 930 §1.
Don_Ruggero said:
At my age, when I am Presider at a Sunday Mass for the public, I may be able to distribute the Eucharist but also aware that it is not prudent for me to do so. I not infrequently today choose not to do so. I am normally standing for the parts that are prescribed for me to stand…but it has happened that I have had to finish the Mass sitting.

And what the laity think is not of remote interest to me – they must submit themselves in unconditional docility to the authority of my decision and that of the Bishop of the diocese.
Click to expand...
In a situation where it actually would an issue about handing off distribution of the Eucharist to the Extraordinary Ministers – which it is not in my diocese, with my bishop – I would resolve the matter easily: I am retired and living in retirement. I would decline to offer the Mass and the congregation could suffer the consequence.

Beyond that, and to the point of you finding the comment extraordinary: I do not have any obligation to divulge either my diagnosis, its impact on me, or my infirmities to any lay person – any – or to the congregation of a parish at which I have volunteered, as a retired priest, to provide them with the celebration of the Eucharist.

Therefore, they get to accept that what I am doing, I am doing in accord with what is right and proper…and no further explanation…neither from me nor from the Bishop.

In the same way, when I was parish priest of a certain parish, we had retired priests who would come from their residence within the parish boundaries to concelebrate…and it was their judgment alone as to what they did. If they needed to sit throughout the Eucharist, they sat throughout. If they could read the Gospel or stand at the altar or even if they wanted to give a homily, they were always welcomed to do so, by simply saying so. But they always knew they could simply do the bare minimum, with no question from me.

If they said they couldn’t help with Communion, there was no further discussion.

Questions were dealt with very simply. “Why doesn’t Father X do what other concelebrants do?” The answers was “He is retired…he has health issues.” Any further inquiry was answered with: “That is not your business.”

In other words, their response was to be one of docility to the decision made by the parish priest and the Bishop concerning persons and circumstances that were of no concern to the inquiring laity

Does that clarify @acanonlawyer?
 
Last edited:
I was curious if you replied to 1ke’s question below because I think it is a valid one.
 
I see that the original poster never posted beyond the first post.
 
Sorry for that ambiguity, Fr. Ruggerro.

It was directed to the OP, who is nowhere to be found. He obviously didn’t have much interest in having a dialogue, it would seem.

Perhaps I’m naive, but it goes against my own sensus fidelium, in any case, to think that these alleged “liturgical abuses” that the OP claims to be happening exist at all at the Cathedral.
 
Last edited:
“And what the laity think is not of remote interest to me – they must submit themselves in unconditional docility to the authority of my decision and that of the Bishop of the diocese.”

This statement could be interpreted as representing the worst aspects of clericalism.

“Unconditional docility” is not demanded of Catholics. Were that the case, then anything a bishop or priest decides would be beyond question. That has never been Catholic teaching or practice. There are indeed rights and protections afforded to the laity under ecclesiastical law and Church practice. To say that “unconditional docility” is the condition of the laity is seriously problematic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top