Jumping the Gun on the New Roman Missal

[DeaconsSon87]

Because my younger brother had his Boy Scouts meeting last night, we decided we’d go to All Saints’ Day Mass at the church that was hosting the troop…and here’s where the story begins.

The last time we went there, the associate pastor (the actual pastor’s never there because he’s also the pastor of another parish in the city) announced they’re now using parts from the New Missal…but one part of which was only approved for musical setting before the First Sunday of Advent (the Gloria-which they had recited), and another two parts which weren’t to be used at all until then (the Credo and the Preface Dialogue). My dad had e-mailed some people about it, and they confirmed it was not supposed to be used before the date of implementation.

Well, now it’s expanded…here’s where they jumped the gun

• We were greeted with Form B of the Greeting: “Grace to you and peace…” and everybody responded “And with your spirit”
• The new Confetior was also used…
• And the new Gloria was sung (in the Archdiocese, it was approved to be sung since October, so it’s OK)
• The Opening Prayer…from the current missal.
• We were instructed to respond from the new Gospel introduction.
• And we used the new Credo-again.
• And the new Orate Fratres…
• But not the new form of the Prayer Before the Gifts.
• And the new form of the Preface Dialogue…
• But not the new form of the Preface…
• And the new form of the Sanctus (it was sung, so it’s OK)
• But not the new form of the Eucharistic Prayer…
• And the Mysterium Fidei (which he actually chanted in Latin)
• And the new Memorial Acclamation (which was sung, so it’s OK)
• But not the new Doxology…
• But not the new Lord’s Prayer subtext/Prayer for Peace/Sign of Peace invitation…
• And the new Ecce Agnus Dei…
• But not the new Prayer After Communion.
• And the instructed “And with your spirit” for the Solemn Blessing…
• But not the new Solemn Blessing itself…
• And not the new Dismissal.

My dad didn’t go to Communion because, as a deacon (cleric), his obligations are stricter than the layman’s…he believed that this Mass was valid, but might have been illicit-while he previously held back from taking any further action once contacted, he just doesn’t know this time…

So that’s where I need to ask you (And don’t worry, I did not name anything specific)

 

[puzzleannie]

many if not most parishes have been “practising” all or part of the changes at least since the end of the summer, so parishioners won’t be totally surprised come Nov. 27

 

[DeaconsSon87]

many if not most parishes have been “practising” all or part of the changes at least since the end of the summer, so parishioners won’t be totally surprised come Nov. 27

And that’s just fine…at our regular parish, the pastor has been having us rehearse the changes before Mass, making it perfectly clear that we won’t be using them until the Date of Implementation.

 

[mdkirkbride]

Our parish got permission, from our Bishop, to start the new Missal as to be more prepared for it come Advent.

 

[Corki]

It was probably wrong for them to jump the gun but I don’t think it would make the Mass illicit. These are approved responses, just a bit early.

A friend emailed me this morning that, due to a tight schedule, she went to a different parish last night for All Saints Mass. They had cards in the pews for the new responses and were saying them. However, the priest was using the current translation for all of his parts.

It will be a confusing few weeks but then it will be fine.

 

[Brendan]

I was recently in Tanzania on a mission trip. They will be implementing it on the same date we will be.

Being a former English colony, English is rather prevelant.

The Bishop of the diocese I was working in uses the new Missal during the private Masses he says in his chapel.

In addition, I spend quite a bit of time at the diocesan minor seminary. They use the new Missal for all their English Masses. Which makes sense, because that is the Missal they will be using a priests by the time they are ordained.

 

[promethius]

My dad didn’t go to Communion because, as a deacon (cleric), his obligations are stricter than the layman’s…

Was he concelebrating, or was he in the pews with the laity? I seem to recall no rubric which specifies a liturgical “policing” rule for deacons in the pews who are not helping the celebrant…

he believed that this Mass was valid, but might have been illicit-while he previously held back from taking any further action once contacted, he just doesn’t know this time…

Using the new missal would in no way cause the mass to be invalid. I would counsel your dad that:

1. an illicit practice does not mean the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Christ which, in itself, is worthy of our full adoration, worship, and communion.
2. They may have had permission from the bishop to do this, so perhaps he should ask rather than gunning down the priest behind his back.

 

[ANNE_2]

The Roman Missal Third Edition (Novis Ordo Mass) goes into effect on NOV 27, 2011.

“Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Divine Worship, announced that **diocesan bishops ****may permit the gradual introduction of the musical settings **of the people’s parts of the Mass from the new Roman Missal in September. Primarily this affects the the Gloria, the Holy, Holy, Holy and the Memorial Acclamations.”

usccb.org/news/2011/11-126.cfm

In my Diocese, there are Parish classes regarding all changes for those who are interested.
Musical changes have started.

 

[I_Thirst]

Poor man! Does he suffer from scrupulosity?

 

[Joe_5859]

In 3 1/2 weeks it will be a moot point anyway. I wouldn’t spend a great deal of time worrying about it.

 

[Corki]

Was he concelebrating, or was he in the pews with the laity? I seem to recall no rubric which specifies a liturgical “policing” rule for deacons in the pews who are not helping the celebrant…

Using the new missal would in no way cause the mass to be invalid. I would counsel your dad that:

1. an illicit practice does not mean the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Christ which, in itself, is worthy of our full adoration, worship, and communion.
2. They may have had permission from the bishop to do this, so perhaps he should ask rather than gunning down the priest behind his back.

First of all, deacons don’t concelebrate.

I didn’t see anything in the OP that indicated that his dad was “policing” the Mass. The Mass was non-standard, it made the deacon uncomfortable so he chose to abstain from Communion. Since there is no requirement that anyone, not even a deacon receive Communion on All Saints Day, it is no big deal.

 

[promethius]

First of all, deacons don’t concelebrate.

My bad for using the wrong term! I should have said assisted. Mea culpa (for the mix up and for not getting my coffee today to help with clear thinking!)

I didn’t see anything in the OP that indicated that his dad was “policing” the Mass.

The discussion on his dad having greater responsibility than a layperson and that he doesn’t know what to do in response to this says that yes, he is attempting to police the mass. Had he merely asked the priest, he would know if the Bishop had authorized this use of the new missal and wouldn’t be in question as to “what he has to do about it”.

The Mass was non-standard, it made the deacon uncomfortable so he chose to abstain from Communion. Since there is no requirement that anyone, not even a deacon receive Communion on All Saints Day, it is no big deal.

No, it’s not really a big deal, but if his sole reason for skipping communion is the perception of an illicit practice therefore making the communion somehow less worthy of his consumption, then he needs to correct that notion.

However, if his discomfort from his perception caused him to enter a state where he was not properly disposed to communion (a fault in the self, not in the Eucharist) then I agree with you and he should have abstained. It’s all a question of what his motivation was, and as long as he’s aware that the licit status of the mass has no impact on the validity and substance of the Eucharist, everything is peachy-keen.

 

[Corki]

The discussion on his dad having greater responsibility than a layperson and that he doesn’t know what to do in response to this says that yes, he is attempting to police the mass. Had he merely asked the priest, he would know if the Bishop had authorized this use of the new missal and wouldn’t be in question as to “what he has to do about it”.

I guess I just read it that, as a deacon, he has a greater responsibilty to understand the Mass and would be more in-tune with something that wasn’t quite right.

No, it’s not really a big deal, but if his sole reason for skipping communion is the perception of an illicit practice therefore making the communion somehow less worthy of his consumption, then he needs to correct that notion.

However, if his discomfort from his perception caused him to enter a state where he was not properly disposed to communion (a fault in the self, not in the Eucharist) then I agree with you and he should have abstained. It’s all a question of what his motivation was, and as long as he’s aware that the licit status of the mass has no impact on the validity and substance of the Eucharist, everything is peachy-keen.

I never said he “should” not have received, only that it was fine if he chose not to. We don’t have to receive Communion at every Mass, even if we are properly disposed. You don’t need a “motivation” to abstain from Communion.

 

[Brendan]

I guess I just read it that, as a deacon, he has a greater responsibilty to understand the Mass and would be more in-tune with something that wasn’t quite right. .

That is my understanding as well. Deacons are no less the servants of the Bishop are thus as aware of what the bishop has promulgated in his diocese as the priests would be.

If there is a question on the part of the Deacon, he would have the right (and obligation) to discuss it with his bishop. That is whom the Deacon ‘reports’ to.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

In both parishes I attend, the changes are being introduced gradually, if somewhat unpredictably. One has the “menu” card in the pews - sometimes we do the changed version (some of it), and sometimes not (today we did NONE of the changes). The other has big screens and the “And with your spirit” response is flashed at the time we usually say “And also with you,” so the responses end up about 50/50 and it’s a general hub-bub. The one with the pew cards does the new Gloria, but has yet to roll out the “new” (old) confeitor. We said the “new” Nicene Creed in the other parish, with help from the teleprompters.

I kind of wish they’d just thrown us in at the deep end and rolled it all out at the same time. The transition is just clumsy and confusing. If we had the cheater cards and/or the script on-screen, I think most people would quickly come up to speed on it.

But I can’t wait to get my new missal…which I fully expect to share with a C&E Catholic at Christmas! Poor things…they are going to be stunned!

.

 

[promethius]

That is my understanding as well. Deacons are no less the servants of the Bishop are thus as aware of what the bishop has promulgated in his diocese as the priests would be.

If there is a question on the part of the Deacon, he would have the right (and obligation) to discuss it with his bishop. That is whom the Deacon ‘reports’ to.

This is a personal conception of the duties of a deacon. Please show in any church document that a deacon in the pews has a responsibility to police the liturgy and report to the bishop on such matters.

Further, I reject the notion that a deacon SHOULD have any better understanding of the mass than a layperson. Ideally, we would ALL have the same, very good understanding of the mass. Ideally, in the face of grave abuse and having taken the effort to address it locally, we ALL share the same responsiblity to inform the Bishop about situations that arise in a parish.

 

[Joe_5859]

But I can’t wait to get my new missal…which I fully expect to share with a C&E Catholic at Christmas! Poor things…they are going to be stunned!

.

I think many probably are just going to be slightly bewildered. They’re going to be thinking, “Something seems different, but I can’t quite put my finger on it… ”

 

[paperwight66]

I think many probably are just going to be slightly bewildered. They’re going to be thinking, “Something seems different, but I can’t quite put my finger on it… ” QUOTE

I agree. We have been using the new translation in the UK for some time now, and it only took a week or two to adjust. There was no transition. We were told that there would be cards in the benches for the following week, and took it from there.

There really isn’t that big a difference, not enough to be stunned by, anyway.

 

[Joe_5859]

I agree. We have been using the new translation in the UK for some time now, and it only took a week or two to adjust. There was no transition. We were told that there would be cards in the benches for the following week, and took it from there.

There really isn’t that big a difference, not enough to be stunned by, anyway.

Interesting.

I think it is possible to overexaggerate the changes. I think it’s great that we’re being dilligent in not leaving people lost and confused and that we’re seizing the catechetical opportunity. That said, compared to 40 years ago when the change was from one Missal to another and a change from Latin to the vernacular, this change to simply a new edition of the same Missal in the same language is not nearly so jarring.

 

[puzzleannie]

). My dad had e-mailed some people about it, and they confirmed it was not supposed to be used before the date of implementation.

Well, now it’s expanded…here’s where they jumped the gun

• .

My dad didn’t go to Communion because, as a deacon (cleric), his obligations are stricter than the layman’s…he believed that this Mass was valid, but might have been illicit-while he previously held back from taking any further action once contacted, he just doesn’t know this time…

So that’s where I need to ask you (And don’t worry, I did not name anything specific)

why did your dad feel the need to make these inquiries? does his position give him some authority over Mass celebrated by this priest, or in this parish? If not he was way out of line and needlessly scrupulous, and if he caused you or others to refrain from communion, or to worry about whether the Mass was licit (sacraments have validity, Mass has licity) that is a very serious thing.