Help! Backlash on trying to restore order in liturgy!

  • Thread starter Thread starter NewsTheMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HCC said:
Here are a couple articles you might find helpful: John XIII’s opening statements on the purpose of Vatican II:
Click to expand...
I think it is usually unhelpful to get into an argument about whether the “spirit” of Vatican II is better served by doing X or doing Y. It’s standardless, unproductive, and implicitly concedes that the sum of the council’s teaching not only escapes the limits of its documents, but in fact contradict its documents. It’s very apparent that the person who responded to the OP (quoted in post #4) not only lacks basic writing and analytical skills, but more importantly, that they’ve never read Sacrosanctum concilium.

You have to remember that Vatican II is the Yogi Berra of councils: it didn’t say half the things it said. In my view, the best remedy to blithe invocations of what Vatican II supposedly taught is specific citation of what the council actually taught.
 
Benedictgal and corsair! Thank you for your kind responses and for havin my back on this overwhlemingly anti-me thread 🙂 Those links were very helpful Benedictgal, I will send them on!

If you are interested… I sent off my response that I posted (the second response to each point) butI made it more charitable and edited it when I was in a good, spiritual mood, so as to not include unecessary things. I think the response he sent back to immediately is illuminating. This was the response I got back:

Our discussion ends here. It is clear we have nothing to talk about because we are a part of two different Church’s.

:eek: I sent a reply and asked him what he meant; surely he cannot mean what he is saying? I know I am going to get attacked for this… but… It is clear that he has been poorly Catechised and doesn’t understand the role of Rome or Vatican II, and he has been exposed to too much evangelicalism.

As SimonDodd said, sometimes it is clear whe someone doesn’t read Church documents. Perhaps some here think it a little too cute or brave for little old me to be reading Church documents. Well, sorry to say, you need to suck it up. I read Church documents. Encyclicals, GIRM, Pope writings, whatever. And I will quote the necessary parts.

SimonDodd - its been a long day and I wanted to post my problems point by point tonight but I have had to deal with this whole discrediting thing first… Tomorrow morning methinks, if you are still willing to help 🙂
 
NewsTheMan said:
SimonDodd - its been a long day and I wanted to post my problems point by point tonight but I have had to deal with this whole discrediting thing first… Tomorrow morning methinks, if you are still willing to help 🙂
Click to expand...
Sure, I will, but listen: hold fire on communicating further with the liturgy committee (or whatever it is) for now. If you antagonize them further, as the reply you posted above suggests they might be getting, it’s going to be harder to win them over later.
 
Dear NewsTheMan,

As I read your OP, it seems you have great discontent with the music and singing at mass.
  • I highlight the words to bring to attention the fact that the Kyrie should be done by all; in our services the language barrier hinders this, and the exclusivity of the choir does the same.
  • Our services have a mixed bag and the Gloria is not entirely clear; language and choir confusion. I am not opposed to a different language, but the faithful and the collective unity of the congregation as a whole should be placed above choir exclusivity.
  • Great importance should therefore be attached to the use of singing in the celebration of the Mass, with due consideration for the culture of the people and abilities of each liturgical assembly.
    [OP take note of the blue highlight.]
  • Participation of the faithful is once again emphasised.
  • Some clarity from the Bishops would be nice, but I wonder about our drums and how they fit in with a Western mass. And the occasional solo guitar from some members of our congregation is obviously a no-no that does happen!
  • Through suitable instruction and practices, the people should be gradually led to a fuller – indeed, to a complete – participation in those parts of the singing which pertain to them.
Click to expand...
Are you so lacking in patience with the rest of the world that you would force the African people to sing? It takes time to bring them to full participation, and this is not accomplished by fingerpointing as though the congregation is disobedient or negligent, and by your demanding a corrective procedure, as if this was an abuse. :rolleyes:

And would you force them to abandon their instruments which are absolutely lawful, but are not your particular preference? There is a Vatican document that specifically encourages this nation to use spirited liturgies in accord with their native culture. You cannot remake them into monastic chanters.
§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion
Click to expand...
Once again, this may appear to be an abuse in your eyes. possibly due to your lack of education. In the USA, the Bishops Commission has specifically encouraged distribution of holy communion under both species, and has set forth guidelines asking for two EMHC’s for each station - now that could mean six per liturgy, if three stations are used, and it would be lawful - not an abuse. Could you please show us what the African bishops have legislated? They DO have authority, you know.
It appears that this, too, is a personal antipathy of yours that has no substance with regard to documentation.

Take a real, long, hard, deep breath - relax, and step down from the bandstand of self- proclaimed authority. Pray for patience and ask Our Lord to show you how to meekly work with others to encourage the singing you desire. Music ministers have the very same problem and are always trying to develop more participation.
 
Sirach2 said:
[The proliferation of EMHCs] may appear to be an abuse in your eyes. possibly due to your lack of education. In the USA, the Bishops Commission has specifically encouraged distribution of holy communion under both species, and has set forth guidelines asking for two EMHC’s for each station - now that could mean six per liturgy, if three stations are used, and it would be lawful - not an abuse. Could you please show us what the African bishops have legislated? They DO have [that] authority, you know.
Click to expand...
No, they do not have that authority. Particular law does not trump universal law, and universal law is very clear about EMHCs: “Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion,” either for physical inability or when “there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and [communion] would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion.” [1] The celebrant has discretion to use EMHCs in cases “of true necessity”[2] if “there is a very large number of communicants.”[3] They must be used strictly pro re nata, not “habitual[ly].”[4]

Redemptionis Sacramentum sums up the rules this way: EMHCs can be used “only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged,” with the understanding that “a brief prolongation … is not at all a sufficient reason.”[5]

In short, I don’t think it’s the OP who has misperceived what is and is not abuse on this point.

Footnotes
  1. Ecclesiae de Mysterio art. 8.2 (interdicasterial instruction approved in forma specifica by John Paul II, 1997) (“EM”) (emphasis added).
  2. Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 151 (CDW 2004) (“RS”); EM, art. 8.2.
  3. GIRM 162.
  4. EM, art. 8.2; RS 157.
  5. RS 158.
 
Simon Dodd:
No, they do not have that authority. Particular law does not trump universal law, and universal law is very clear about EMHCs:
Click to expand...
You are incorrect, Bishops DO have authority. I will also emend my statement that there could be as many as six EMHC’s at three stations, and note that these guidelines suggest six EMHC’s to distribute at only two stations. nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America

Approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
on June 14, 2001
Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Prot. 1383/01/L​
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

And here is the specific reference I mentioned in my post:

Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
28. When the size of the congregation or the incapacity of the bishop, priest, or deacon requires it, the celebrant may be assisted by other bishops, priests, or deacons.[ (42)](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/l N_42_) If such ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are not present, “the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, i.e., formally instituted acolytes or even some of the faithful who have been commissioned according to the prescribed rite. In case of necessity, the priest may also commission suitable members of the faithful for the occasion.”[ (43)](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/l N_43_)
　
30. When Holy Communion is to be distributed under both species, careful planning should be undertaken so that: 　
a suitable number of ministers of Holy Communion are provided at each Mass. For Communion from the chalice, it is desirable that there be generally two ministers of the Precious Blood for each minister of the Body of Christ, lest the liturgical celebration be unduly prolonged.
 
Sirach, you are doubly wrong. Unless we’re talking about bishops of the Episcopal Church (in which case, my apologies), you are wrong that an individual bishop or group of bishops can require what Rome forbids or refuse what Rome requires. When there is a conflict and a Parish must disobey both Rome and USCCB, the latter gives way.

What’s more, even assuming arguendo that they can, you are wrong in finding such conflict in the document you cite. The error lies in your emphases. USCCB says: “In case of necessity, the priest may also commission EMHCs” (emphasis changed)—which is exactly what Rome says. USCCB says: “it is desirable that there be generally two ministers of the Precious Blood for each minister of the Body of Christ” (emphasis added). And USCCB makes this provision “lest the liturgical celebration be unduly prolonged” (emphasis added)—which is exactly what Rome says.

So what’s going on here? You needlessly insinuate dissonance into a USCCB document that is more naturally read as being in perfect harmony with Rome’s directives, and having invented a conflict, assert the bishops of the United States get the last word in it. How come?

Wait. This seems familiar. Let me go out on a limb here: Are you an EMHC?
 
One way to eliminate the use of EMHCs would be to employ the method of intinction. However, the only one who could administer Holy Communion by intinction is the celebrant. An EMHC could hold the chalice for him, but the celebrant would be the one administering Holy Communion.

When I contacted the CDWDS for clarification on this, the official I spoke to cited the GIRM, RS and the Norms for Distribution of Holy Communion in the United States. Of course, if the parish had an intinction set, then everything would be self-contained. The CDWDS told me that in a two-priest parish, nothing could prevent the non-celebrant priest from vesting in a cassock, stole and surplice from coming in to assist with the distribution of Holy Communion via intinction. In fact, this is what I saw at St. Louis when I was there a couple of years ago.
 
Simon Dodd:
So what’s going on here? You needlessly insinuate dissonance into a USCCB document that is more naturally read as being in perfect harmony with Rome’s directives, and having invented a conflict, assert the bishops of the United States get the last word in it. How come?
Click to expand...
From Rome’s directives: (RS)

101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.[187] With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.[188]

Did you note the formal approval from CDWDS to the USCCB, Simon? I don’t enjoy listening to people imply that our bishops are renegade dissidents in opposition to Rome, and subsequently, that all the priests who obey them are likewise disobedient. Do your homework thoroughly before making such a public defamatory accusation!

Wrong again, I am NOT an EMHC, but I do know that they are lawfully exercising a service to God’s peopole, having been approved by the Bishops, in accordance with the directive from Rome.
 
Sirach2 said:
From Rome’s directives: (RS)
… With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.
Click to expand...
Yes, quite right. What’s your point? No one challenges the USCCB’s authority to issue norms on the subject within the framework provided by the Holy See, a fortiori when explicitly authorized to do so by the latter. That by no means, however, implies an authority for USCCB to override the Vatican’s directives.
I don’t enjoy listening to people imply that our bishops are renegade dissidents in opposition to Rome, and subsequently, that all the priests who obey them are likewise disobedient.
Click to expand...
Then you’re in luck, because I did no such thing. Actually, to the contrary: I claimed that our bishops’ directive is in harmony with Rome’s directives. You are the one asserting dissonance, claiming that USCCB’s directive conflicts with what is set out in Ecclesiae de Mysterio, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and the GIRM in absolutely crystal clear language. Extraordinary ministers are just that: extraordinary and pro re nata. My point is precisely that our bishops have not contradicted that.
 
Ah, so your emphasis on the words “in case of necessity” are to be interpreted solely by you as there never is any necessity, so therefore, the bishops/priests/EMHC’s are all wrong. And if the bishop considers the average parish as a case of necessity and authorizes the use of six EMHC’s to distribute holy communion under both species, who are you to dispute his authority and determine there is a lack of necessity?

Straw man, my man. 🍿
 
We all need to understand a few things.
  1. There is an overuse of EMHC that needs to be reigned in. It has gotten out of control in some parishes.
  2. EMHC are not going away any time soon. They will be utilized in most parishes across the country for most weekend Masses and nothing is going to stop that.
The “left” needs to get over #1 and the “right” needs get over #2.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
EMHC are not going away any time soon. They will be utilized in most parishes across the country for most weekend Masses and nothing is going to stop that.
Click to expand...

Sure, I think that’s right. We don’t have enough deacons and priests, so it’s pretty much certain to happen. But that doesn’t change the points that are relevant here (yours that they are overused, mine that this overuse is illicit), and it doesn’t mean that some efforts can’t be made to trim back the proliferation.

If one of the OP’s concerns is excessive and habitual use of EMHCs, here’s what I’d do. I’d set out how many EMHCs are routinely used, and I’d get some numbers about how long the communion procession typically lasts, how long a Mass typically lasts. Of course, the answer may be that it typically lasts quite a while, but let’s assume that it doesn’t for a moment. I’d also get some numbers on overall duration: perhaps the Mass in that parish runs a little short (I’m told that a nearby parish gets done in 45 minutes), perhaps it’s right about an hour. Then I’d concisely set out the rules from Rome, with emphasis on the differentiation between “brief prolongation” vs. “excessive or undue prolongation.” I’d pose a question for those who are against a reduction: how much time would eliminating EMHCs have to add in order to constitute “excessive or undue”? Then I’d suggest that as an experiment, try reducing the numbers of EMHCs, and see how much longer Mass lasts. Better to know than to guess, right? Who can be against getting some concrete data? For example, if communion lasts ten minutes with six EMHCs (four chalices), try eliminating all but the chalices on as ordinary a sunday as you can find, and see what happens. My bet is that it’ll last about fifteen minutes. That’s not “excessive,” a fortiori if the Mass typically runs five minutes short.

Obviously, however, you have to make a serious enough case, and be taken seriously enough as a person, to even get that experiment. And it depends a lot on the parish. We should now discard the assumption made above: If the parish is already taking thirty minutes to communicate the average sunday turnout using twelve EMHCs, forget it. That’s not abuse of EMHCs. But few parishes are like that, I think. I’ve attended a Mass where the celebrant used three EMHCs were used for a congregation of about a dozen—as clear an example of habitual and unnecessary use as can be imagined. Most lie somewhere in between. In many, it may even be the habitual use that needs taming, rather than the total number.

Anyway, my point here is to be sensitive to local conditions, and that I agree that we’re not going to get rid of them entirely—not that I think anyone wants to! It’s a useful ministry. It’s the abuse of it that concerns me, and, I suspect, the OP.
 
By the by, I want to apologize to Sirach2; I stand by the substance of my earlier remarks, but their tone was neither appropriate nor exemplary of how I think issues should be discussed here. My apologies.
 
You’ve received some excellent critiques and excellent advice in this thread – whether you choose to listen is another matter.

You obviously have a conservative bent in what appears to be a not-so-conservative parish. You are also obviously a young person without much experience in working with volunteers and various committees, which themselves probably DO represent experience and dedication.

It’s incredibly insulting, demeaning and overbearing to email a document such as yours to a “liturgy committee” when you are addressing points that go to the heart of the charism and character of your paritcular parish. I’m surprised that the backlash didn’t include tar and feathering. I’ve led and been a member of several authentic liturgy committees and had I been there, I would have been wielding the tar bucket.

Someone said (I’m paraphrasing) that new members of any committee should sit and be quiet for a year without offering any opinions at all. That is true of every church committee or any kind of organizational entity. New members are often full of enthusiasm and empty of any real knowledge of the way a committee functions, its history and its vision for the future. There are far better ways to address desired/necessary changes than a heavy-handed, impersonal email.

Some of your points should be addressed only TO and BY the pastor – and in some you are making recommendations that would be nearly outside the purview of a Bishop.

You can’t “fix” everything YOU think is wrong with the entire celebration of the OF Mass by picking to pieces one parish’s customs. Much of it doesn’t need to be “fixed” – it appears that your agenda is the one that needs prayerful reflection.

This post may seem unkind and too blunt, but I remember others of your posts where you’ve been instrumental in questionable interference at your parish. In case you haven’t noticed, you’re not in charge there – Jesus is.
 
I will fully contribute to my thread on the weekend again, I am just far too busy this week. Let me just get the Extraordinary Minister business out the way.

We are routinely using 4 EMHC’s for anywhere between 20-50 people. Our numbers on a Sunday do not go over 50, and mostly stick at around the 30 number. Communion takes less than 5 minutes. On weekday Mass’s - we have have 5-10 people, and STILL we use 1 EMHC. When I originally brought up my concern, everybody gasped, and said that it was their right to have both species, and its far better to have both species than to address an “abuse” which in their minds isn’t there. An obvious lack of undertsanding here, because one species is sufficient (i.e. neither contains just 50% and both = 100%) and I truly, humbly, believe that using 4 EMHC each sunday for 20-50 people is ridiculous, and so is using 1 EMHC for a weekday Mass for 5-10 people.
 
NewsTheMan said:
I will fully contribute to my thread on the weekend again, I am just far too busy this week. Let me just get the Extraordinary Minister business out the way.

We are routinely using 4 EMHC’s for anywhere between 20-50 people. Our numbers on a Sunday do not go over 50, and mostly stick at around the 30 number. Communion takes less than 5 minutes. On weekday Mass’s - we have have 5-10 people, and STILL we use 1 EMHC. When I originally brought up my concern, everybody gasped, and said that it was their right to have both species, and its far better to have both species than to address an “abuse” which in their minds isn’t there. An obvious lack of undertsanding here, because one species is sufficient (i.e. neither contains just 50% and both = 100%) and I truly, humbly, believe that using 4 EMHC each sunday for 20-50 people is ridiculous, and so is using 1 EMHC for a weekday Mass for 5-10 people.
Click to expand...
What does the weekday mass EMHC do though? If they distribute the bread as well that is kind of unneeded, but if they distribute the wine then I think I would personally prefer the option of having both bodies rather than one.
 
When I originally brought up my concern, everybody gasped, and said that it was their right to have both species, and it’s far better to have both species than to address an “abuse” which in their minds isn’t there. An obvious lack of understanding here, because one species is sufficient.
Click to expand...
Yes, one species is sufficient…
the right to receive both species is theirs…

… but you are not in sync with the present Mind of the Church — encouraging the reception of both. It is rather clear that you have a lot of angst toward EMHC’s, even to the point of denying people reception from the chalice, so that you can reduce the number of those who serve. It is not your decision.

I asked whether you reviewed the directives from your country’s bishops regarding EMHC’s. If it is similar to the USA, the desirable formula is two distributing the chalice for each station that distributes the host. So your situation at morning mass with one EMHC assisting your pastor with the chalice is certainly necessary.

For Sundays, if there are two stations, one being the priest‘s, then four EMHC’s is perfectly reasonable, even though there are only up to 50 at mass. I would think this could be reduced to three, though, with only one assisting with the chalice at the second station, when the congregation is small. That could be predetermined prior to mass, and a previously-scheduled EMHC could sit that one out. I do believe it is honorable of them to arrive and anticipate fulfilling their obligation.

It is edifying to me that in my diocese when the H1N1 virus was active last fall, the bishop suspended reception from the chalice. Noteworthy was the fact that we reduced the number of EMHC’s, since two were no longer required for the chalice. Contrary to your thinking, perhaps, our priests do have a handle on necessity and make adjustments accordingly. I cannot speak for other dioceses, but in ours, there is no overabundance, and those who serve are within the guidelines of our bishop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top