can you help me to find where it says....

[benedictgal]

Sounds to me like we’re a bunch of “pharisees”, following the letter of the law and not it’s spirit.

“For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them” Matthew 23

Does it really matter whom really transports the ciborium? I think not.

Actually, it does. With all due respect, people in these forums make references to the pharisees when they may not necessarily understand the biblical context. Contrary to popular belief, the pharisees did not concern themeselves with the cultic, temple sacrficial form of worship of Ancient Israel. What they were trying to do was to impose priestly practices on the people of Ancient Israel as a means of trying to avoid the same kinds of infractions that got Ancient Israel consistently invaded and sent off into exile.

Norms and rubrics do matter. Bear in mind that the first liturgical document that we have is found in the Old Testament when the Lord spent not too few words dictating to Moses just how He wanted to be worshipped, including form and matter. This form of sacrificial worship set the stage and pointed to what Christ would command to his Apostles and their successors to do. Furthermore, Jesus respected the rules of temple sacrificial worship because His own Father dictated them and God is not going to contradict Himself. In addition, when the norms of Ancient Israel were disobeyed and disregarded, the penalty was severe. Just look at what happened to the sons of Aaron and to Dathan.

Thus, norms and rubrics are very important. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not some free form exercise in creativity. There are duties that are assigned to the celebrant and those that are assigned to the faithful. We cannot mix and match according to how we see fit. Obedience and fidelity are important.

 

[PJM]

=wisdomseeker;6550535]I have been looking for where it says that women are not to return the Host back to the Tabernacle. i heard fr. Pacwa saying this on tv the other day. that only the priest or the deacon can do this. but i cant find where the Church teaches this.

can anyone help? thanks and God bless.

Can. 943 The minister of exposition of the blessed Sacrament and of the eucharistic blessing is a priest or deacon. In special circumstances the minister of exposition and deposition alone, but without the blessing, is an acolyte, and extraordinary minister of holy communion, or another person deputed by the local Ordinary, in accordance with the regulations of the diocesan Bishop.

 

[benedictgal]

Can. 943 The minister of exposition of the blessed Sacrament and of the eucharistic blessing is a priest or deacon. In special circumstances the minister of exposition and deposition alone, but without the blessing, is an acolyte, and extraordinary minister of holy communion, or another person deputed by the local Ordinary, in accordance with the regulations of the diocesan Bishop.

However, we are speaking here about who does what during the Mass, not during exposition. These are two very different circumstances. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[wisdomseeker]

However, we are speaking here about who does what during the Mass, not during exposition. These are two very different circumstances. One has nothing to do with the other.

a lady at my parished used this argument: that a woman can take the Host back to the Tabernacle because the women went into the tomb of Jesus. based on this the women can have access to the Tabernacle. i find more and more people using Passages in the Bible to justify whatever it is that they want to do. i told her that in this case the women can also justify that they can be priests. who can tell them they couldnt since they could go into the Tomb.

:knight2:

 

[benedictgal]

a lady at my parished used this argument: that a woman can take the Host back to the Tabernacle because the women went into the tomb of Jesus. based on this the women can have access to the Tabernacle. i find more and more people using Passages in the Bible to justify whatever it is that they want to do. i told her that in this case the women can also justify that they can be priests. who can tell them they couldnt since they could go into the Tomb.

:knight2:

Just because they went to the Tomb, that does not mean that they touched Jesus. The tomb was already empty. Remember, Jesus told St. Mary Magdalene not to touch Him.

The tabernacle is not a tomb. Jesus, in His glorified body, blood, soul and divinity, is present there in the Blessed Sacrament.

What folks need to be doing is reading the authoritative documents of the Holy See rather than try to use any excuse possible to justify what they are ilicitly doing.

 

[TaterSoup]

So as I previously stated the diocesan bishop has been referred to as having authority, by the USCCB, to act in this instance and needs to be referred to as the authority for the ritural practice as to whether or not someone other than a priest may transfer and place the Blessed Sacrament into the Tabernacle at the conclusion of the communion rite. The next question logically is has the local ordinary exercised that authority and what in fact was decided for parishes within his diocese.

 

[benedictgal]

So as I previously stated the diocesan bishop has been referred to as having authority, by the USCCB, to act in this instance and needs to be referred to as the authority for the ritural practice as to whether or not someone other than a priest may transfer and place the Blessed Sacrament into the Tabernacle at the conclusion of the communion rite. The next question logically is has the local ordinary exercised that authority and what in fact was decided for parishes within his diocese.

The bishop does not have the authority to override the GIRM. He can only do what the GIRM prescribes for him to do. Thus, if the GIRM states that the priest is the one to replace the Blessed Sacrament into the Tabernacle, that is how it is to be done.

Furthermore, if the bishop wants to propose that another person (non-ordained) do this, he needs to present this to the full USCCB for a vote. If the proposal receives an affirmative vote by 2/3 of the Latin-Rite bishops, then, the matter is fowarded to the Holy See. The Holy See makes the final decision as to whether or not to grant the action the necessary recognitio. The bishop cannot act on his own on this one.

 

[boatbearer]

thanks. but i am looking more where it says that laity are not allowed to do such, only a pirest and a deacon are allowed to do this.

in my parish the women are the ones who are taking the Host back to the Tabernacle. i heard priest on EWTN saying this is not permited. but i cannot find where the Church says laity and specially women are not allowed to do this.

There is no such rule. Unless a bishop prohibits the practice in his diocese there would be nothing wrong or abusive about a layperson accessing the Blessed Sacrament reposed in the tabernacle. After talking to your pastor or bishop please consider this:

Given that there is no overt rule, WHY would the Church not allow a layperson to repose the Blessed Sacrament if there was a need GIVEN that they are allowed to distribute the Blessed Sacrament if there is also a need? Think about that in a critical manner for a moment.

This is sort of like communion via intinction. No where does the Church explicitly suggest that an EMHC cannot distribute communion via intinction yet some claim they cannot based on the same sort of reasoning they are using here and it’s faulty. Again, WHY would the Church not allow a layperson to distribute communion via intinction if there was a genuine need GIVEN that they are allowed to distribute the Blessed Sacrament one species at a time if there is also a need? Given the absence of explicit direction from the Church it makes no sense to suggest EMsHC cannot distribute communion via intinction.

I see a difficult parallel between Protestants interpreting the Bible on their own via “direct revelation” while Catholics rely on God through His Church to interpret the Bible AND here where some rely on their bishop through their pastors for guidance while some rely on their own personal interpretation of Church documents which obviously varies widely even on this small forum.

 

[boatbearer]

So as I previously stated the diocesan bishop has been referred to as having authority, by the USCCB, to act in this instance and needs to be referred to as the authority for the ritural practice as to whether or not someone other than a priest may transfer and place the Blessed Sacrament into the Tabernacle at the conclusion of the communion rite. The next question logically is has the local ordinary exercised that authority and what in fact was decided for parishes within his diocese.

Spot on.

 

[benedictgal]

There is no such rule. Unless a bishop prohibits the practice in his diocese there would be nothing wrong or abusive about a layperson accessing the Blessed Sacrament reposed in the tabernacle. After talking to your pastor or bishop please consider this:

Given that there is no overt rule, WHY would the Church not allow a layperson to repose the Blessed Sacrament if there was a need GIVEN that they are allowed to distribute the Blessed Sacrament is there is also a need? Think about that in a critical manner for a moment.

This is sort of like communion via intinction. No where does the Church explicitly suggest that an EMHC cannot distribute communion via intinction yet some claim they cannot based on the same sort of reasoning they are using here and it’s faulty. Again, WHY would the Church not allow a layperson to distribute communion via intinction if there was a genuine need GIVEN that they are allowed to distribute the Blessed Sacrament one species at a time if there is also a need? Given the absence of explicit direction from the Church it makes no sense to suggest EMsHC cannot distribute communion via intinction.

With all due respect, you are wrong on most counts, especially your last assertion. The CDWDS told me that EMHCs are not to intinct. The documents clearly state that only the priest can do this. The word “priest” is specifically mentioned in the GIRM, RS and the Norms for Distributing Holy Communion. The only thing that an EMHC can do is to hold the chalice for the priest, but, the priest must be done one intincting. The CDWDS is the rule-making authority here, boatboarder, and I trust its interpretation because, after all, the GIRM and RS come from the Congregation. The recognitio for the Norms for the Distribution of Holy Communion comes from the Congregation.

Second, reposition of the Blessed Sacrament by a layman is the last resort and can only be done if the local Ordinary (bishop) approves, and, if the ordinary minister is not available to do this. The ordinary ministers (bishop, priest, deacon) are the ones who do the reposition.

Regarding placing the Blessed Sacrament back into the Tabernacle during Mass, the GIRM already makes clear just who should be doing this and it’s not an EMHC.

The bishop is the steward of the liturgical life of his diocese. It is up to him to safeguard the intergrity of the liturgy. He is just as much bound to obedience to the Holy See as the faithful are bound to obedience to him and the Holy See. He cannot overrule what the Holy See has decreed. He acts in a limited capacity as outlined by the GIRM.

Please, with all due respect, read the documents before making any incorrect assertions, and, please refrain from being insulting and accusing people of acting like Protestants. The documents exist for a reason. We need to read them and heed them.

 

[boatbearer]

I, personally, believe that on issues where the GIRM is silent, the prudence of the Bishop is the deciding factor. I wonder if the silence was intentional on this issue.

sulkow82 SFO

Not everything can be nailed down. If they tried, the GIRM would be more like a US Army Field Manual and that would be ugly. That’s why the Church invests such great authority in its bishops – the direct successors of the Apostles.

Some people form personal interpretations of what different Church documents mean only to get upset when priests and bishops do not follow their personal interpretations. In reality many things are not definitively nailed down (such as the matter under discussion) and the final decision is to be made locally by the cognizant bishop.

 

[benedictgal]

Not everything can be nailed down. If they tried, the GIRM would be more like a US Army Field Manual and that would be ugly. That’s why the Church invests such great authority in its bishops – the direct successors of the Apostles.

Some people form personal interpretations of what different Church documents mean only to get upset when priests and bishops do not follow their personal interpretations. In reality many things are not definitively nailed down (such as the matter under discussion) and the final decision is to be made locally by the cognizant bishop.

Actually, this has already been nailed down, but, you refuse to acknowledge it, boatbearer. Instead, when someone does not agree with you or if you refuse to acknowledge the authoritative source, you resort to insults.

The decision that falls on the bishop to make is whether or not to enforce the authoritative liturgical documents of the Church as implemented by the Holy See and those from the particular national episcopal conference that have already received the necessary recognitio from the Holy See. The bishop cannot make up his own policy. He can only act on what the GIRM has given him the authority to do. In this case, the GIRM is very specific as to what he can do:

1. The Diocesan Bishop, who is to be regarded as the high priest of his flock, and from whom the life in Christ of the faithful under his care in a certain sense derives and upon whom it depends,148 must promote, regulate, and be vigilant over the liturgical life in his diocese. It is to him that in this Instruction is entrusted the regulating of the discipline of concelebration (cf. above, nos. 202, 374) and the establishing of norms regarding the function of serving the priest at the altar (cf. above, no. 107), the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds (cf. above, no. 283), and the construction and ordering of churches (cf. above, no. 291). With him lies responsibility above all for fostering the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy in the priests, deacons, and faithful

If you note on the numerical citations, no. 163, which was cited in the response to the OP several pages ago, is not one of those listed in this section. Thus, whatever the GIRM dictates is what must be followed;

163. When the distribution of Communion is finished, the priest himself immediately and completely consumes at the altar any consecrated wine that happens to remain; as for any consecrated hosts that are left, he either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist.

The GIRM is quite clear as to who can do what. It is lamentable that there are those who refuse to believe this.

 

[BernadetteM]

Hopefully Pope Benedict will be able to stop many of the abuses within the Church. It will take him time and probably as now many Bishops and priests will disobey the rubics set forth. But many of these Bishops and priests are getting older and will retire soon, the sooner the better.

Catholics in many parishes don’t know what the Church allows and just follow what has been done in the past 40 years by both clergy and laypeople. They need to be re-educated as Catholics.

I find that the focus of the liturgy today is more on what the people want and on what the pastor wants than on what the Church intends. We need to get back to our Catholic roots. I am sure that many will not like what I am stating, but I see many Catholics who feel they have power to take the place of a priest or deacon when performing what I consider abuses. It is human nature to want to feel important.

Thankfully I attend a traditional parish where people actually believe in the Real Presence of Chirst and show their reverence. The Blessed Sacrament is on the altar within the tabernacle for all to worship. We don’t have to go hunting for it, as some churches have moved the tabernacle to another building. Our attention in some parishes seems to focus on the priest, not the Lord.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[wisdomseeker]

Just because they went to the Tomb, that does not mean that they touched Jesus. The tomb was already empty. Remember, Jesus told St. Mary Magdalene not to touch Him.

The tabernacle is not a tomb. Jesus, in His glorified body, blood, soul and divinity, is present there in the Blessed Sacrament.

What folks need to be doing is reading the authoritative documents of the Holy See rather than try to use any excuse possible to justify what they are ilicitly doing.

i agree with you. but this is what they are learning in the Church. these teachings are causing dissidents within the Church. what is really sad is that we have many priests quietly teaching the people theology that is contrary to the Church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

With all due respect, you are wrong on most counts, especially your last assertion. The CDWDS told me that EMHCs are not to intinct. The documents clearly state that only the priest can do this. The word “priest” is specifically mentioned in the GIRM, RS and the Norms for Distributing Holy Communion. The only thing that an EMHC can do is to hold the chalice for the priest, but, the priest must be done one intincting. The CDWDS is the rule-making authority here, boatboarder, and I trust its interpretation because, after all, the GIRM and RS come from the Congregation. The recognitio for the Norms for the Distribution of Holy Communion comes from the Congregation.

Second, reposition of the Blessed Sacrament by a layman is the last resort and can only be done if the local Ordinary (bishop) approves, and, if the ordinary minister is not available to do this. The ordinary ministers (bishop, priest, deacon) are the ones who do the reposition.

Regarding placing the Blessed Sacrament back into the Tabernacle during Mass, the GIRM already makes clear just who should be doing this and it’s not an EMHC.

The bishop is the steward of the liturgical life of his diocese. It is up to him to safeguard the intergrity of the liturgy. He is just as much bound to obedience to the Holy See as the faithful are bound to obedience to him and the Holy See. He cannot overrule what the Holy See has decreed. He acts in a limited capacity as outlined by the GIRM.

Please, with all due respect, read the documents before making any incorrect assertions, and, please refrain from being insulting and accusing people of acting like Protestants. The documents exist for a reason. We need to read them and heed them.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hopefully Pope Benedict will be able to stop many of the abuses within the Church. It will take him time and probably as now many Bishops and priests will disobey the rubics set forth. But many of these Bishops and priests are getting older and will retire soon, the sooner the better.

Catholics in many parishes don’t know what the Church allows and just follow what has been done in the past 40 years by both clergy and laypeople. They need to be re-educated as Catholics.

I find that the focus of the liturgy today is more on what the people want and on what the pastor wants than on what the Church intends. We need to get back to our Catholic roots. I am sure that many will not like what I am stating, but I see many Catholics who feel they have power to take the place of a priest or deacon when performing what I consider abuses. It is human nature to want to feel important.

Thankfully I attend a traditional parish where people actually believe in the Real Presence of Chirst and show their reverence. The Blessed Sacrament is on the altar within the tabernacle for all to worship. We don’t have to go hunting for it, as some churches have moved the tabernacle to another building. Our attention in some parishes seems to focus on the priest, not the Lord.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

very true. since the change of the Mass, people are very confused and out of Faith.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

BernadetteM: Great post!

Everyone else, besides the OP who seems to understand, BenedictGal is 100% correct. The rubrics do not state what is not allowed to be done, for the most part, but only what is supposed to be done! If you look hard enough, everything is covered. The Bishop is not allowed to go against the rubrics! Period. Do some Bishops not follow them? Yes. Is this allowed? No.

I know a lot of people will say that “we are supposed to go with where the Holy Spirit leads us.” That is true. But the Holy Spirit guides the Church! Not simply a few “liturgists” at your local parish. The Holy Spirit will not cause division!!!

Also, if something is not clearly stated in the any of the rubrics, and there are a lot to look at before stating that it is not there, that does not necessarily say that it is at the discretion of the local Ordinary, i.e. the local Bishop. True, he may decide something, such as halting a certain practice, until he hears back from the Holy See.

Also, here is the link for intinction:
Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[103.] The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, …though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.[192]

I would like to note that in the paragraph right above 103, it makes a statement about extraordinary ministers. Basically, if the rubrics intend to allow the laity to take part in a sacred minister’s role, it makes it very clear! These are the only times it is allowed.

Also, I welcome you to give me a grave reason for why the Priest can not walk to the tabernacle and this must be done by the laity?

 

[BernadetteM]

BernadetteM: Great post!

Everyone else, besides the OP who seems to understand, BenedictGal is 100% correct. The rubrics do not state what is not allowed to be done, for the most part, but only what is supposed to be done! If you look hard enough, everything is covered. The Bishop is not allowed to go against the rubrics! Period. Do some Bishops not follow them? Yes. Is this allowed? No.

I know a lot of people will say that “we are supposed to go with where the Holy Spirit leads us.” That is true. But the Holy Spirit guides the Church! Not simply a few “liturgists” at your local parish. The Holy Spirit will not cause division!!!

Also, if something is not clearly stated in the any of the rubrics, and there are a lot to look at before stating that it is not there, that does not necessarily say that it is at the discretion of the local Ordinary, i.e. the local Bishop. True, he may decide something, such as halting a certain practice, until he hears back from the Holy See.

Also, here is the link for intinction:
Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[103.] The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, …though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.[192]

I would like to note that in the paragraph right above 103, it makes a statement about extraordinary ministers. Basically, if the rubrics intend to allow the laity to take part in a sacred minister’s role, it makes it very clear! These are the only times it is allowed.

Also, I welcome you to give me a grave reason for why the Priest can not walk to the tabernacle and this must be done by the laity?

Thank you for the kind words.

In the past two weeks I have attended other parishes and in both the only laity in the sanctuary were women. They did the readings, were the EMHC’s and one parish the priest had a visiting priest plus a deacon who just sat on the side of the altar/table and did nothing. There was no need for EMHCs. Before Mass the Pastor went from pew to pew talking to the parishioners. The people in the pews kept up long and loud conversations as if they were at a social event.

Then the priest asked if any newcomers were there and everyone, but a few appauled. How can anyone pray before Mass and prepare themselves to receive the Body and Blood of our Saviour with all this commotion going on? Your thoughts are on what is going on around you, not on Christ.

There were plenty of men and boys in the congregation that should have been serving at the altar. I wonder what has happened to the men in the Catholic Church.

I guess I am spoiled by attending a parish that although small in comparison only uses boys as altar servers and men as lectors. Everyone from 2 years old and up show great reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. There is no noise except a polite “is this pew taken”. When babies cry too much the parent removes them until they are calm.

We have CCD for all the children and many parents come early so the family can attend Mass together. Our Pastor doesn’t allow any inovations to the Mass. We have good Catholic hymns. Every Mass is the OF except for one EF. It is possible to have a beautiful OF liturgy. Confession before every Mass and everyday during the week. We also have long lines waiting.

You come away from our Masses feeling spiritually fed. The sermons are down to earth and are based on the Gospel of the day. I am sad for Catholics who don’t understand how beautiful the Mass can be. I know that change can be difficult, but I am sure 40 years ago changing from TLM to the OF/Norvus Ordo was even more difficult and disturbing.

I believe Pope Benedict said that the Church might become smaller groups and I think he means that with the changes to be made, many will leave. Smaller will strengthen the Church and divisions we now have, as the Catholics who follow all of the Churches traditions and teaching will be left.

I would suggest to Catholics who want women priests and innovations consider the Episcopal church as there is plenty of room now and I am sure their parishes would love to have converts.

What I don’t understand is if you don’t accept the Churches teachings why would a person stay. I assume that they feel that they have the ability to change the Church.

I really would love to see a united Church again.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[boatbearer]

Hopefully Pope Benedict will be able to stop many of the abuses within the Church. It will take him time and probably as now many Bishops and priests will disobey the rubics set forth. But many of these Bishops and priests are getting older and will retire soon, the sooner the better.

Catholics in many parishes don’t know what the Church allows and just follow what has been done in the past 40 years by both clergy and laypeople. They need to be re-educated as Catholics.

I find that the focus of the liturgy today is more on what the people want and on what the pastor wants than on what the Church intends. We need to get back to our Catholic roots. I am sure that many will not like what I am stating, but I see many Catholics who feel they have power to take the place of a priest or deacon when performing what I consider abuses. It is human nature to want to feel important…

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

You judge other Catholics to be ignorant yet somehow you’re certain you know exactly what the Church allows and does not allow? How do you know this? Did your bishop tell you and did you interpret the Church documents for yourself or with the help of others?

Do you see what I’m getting at yet?

 

[boatbearer]

A person named “Cat” posted this on another thread and I thought it was worth repeating:

Cat:

My “proof” is my trust in my bishop, the apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. Is it wrong of me to trust my bishop and to believe that he is capable of correctly and reverently guiding the flock entrusted to him?

Thomas Doran is a Doctor of Canon Law, a man who is respected as an orthodox and conservative bishop of the Catholic Church, and wondrously, a man who grew up in this city and knows the people and the culture of our city.

I choose to trust that my bishop, my apostle, my shepherd, knows what he is doing and is true to his calling from the Lord Jesus. Until he does or says something that is blatantly sinful or evil, I do not feel that it is necessary for me, a lowly layperson, and a convert, to monitor his decisions and compare them with a set of Church documents that men like himself spend a lifetime studying and interpreting. I am not called or qualified to do such micro-analysis of an apostle’s work…

That posting is worth pondering. It’s profound yet it will still be lost on some. Do you follow your bishop or do you follow your personal interpretations (or those of others) of Church documents? Interpretations that carry absolutely no authority?

Wait! You say you follow the Pope (or some other high ranking prelate) but not your bishop? How could that actually be?