Liturgy: I’ll Do It My Way

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FrDavid96 said:
Yes. Saying that the deacon is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion in the E.F. is really (at this point) a distinction without a difference.

On the other hand, saying that no one but a priest (sacerdos) ever did touch, or ever could/should touch, the Most Blessed Sacrament, is simply to express ignorance of the actual history; and to uphold a false value, a misunderstanding, that somehow “un-anointed” hands will offend the Presence of Christ. That is bordering on superstition.
Click to expand...
We are in absolute and perfect agreement, Father.
 
Spyridon said:
I always found people who have an issue with non priests touching the Sacrament a weird thing.

So in their mind, only a Priest can touch the Eucharist…

Yet we can stick the Eucharist in our mouth, gnaw on it and mix it with saliva and have it enter our digestive tract?

Does not compute with me.
Click to expand...
More than weird, it is utterly irrational.

One is in direct contact with the Sacred Species whether one touches It with one’s hand or whether It is resting upon one’s tongue. That is infinitely of greater import than the touching of the vessels which held the Sacred Species, be it a chalice or a ciborium.

These sorts of posts always remind me that “even” lay women could handle the sacred species in the time of the Vetus Ordo…but of course that never gets spoken of today although it was one of those points which always came up in seminary lectures of the day.
 
Last edited:
I stand corrected. However my main point is valid, that is in the EF the host is indeed touched by others besides the priest.
 
Spyridon said:
Isn’t celebrant essentially synonymous with presider in the context of the Mass?
Click to expand...
Normally, there are multiple terms from which one could choose. Most clerics will have a preference that is born of their formation as well as their experience and their personal sensibilities.

The terms I employ are often born from the fact that I have worked in an international settings – plus I tend to prefer terms that I can use universally as opposed to altering them from one instance to the next.

Relative to the term “Presider,” if I am being introduced before the Sunday Eucharist with the term “celebrant” I would not object but it is not the term I use, as it is infelicitous in other liturgical setting.

Thus across liturgical rites…I am the Presider at Eucharist…I am the Presider at the Rite of Blessing of Holy Water or the Rite of Conferral of a Scapular…I am the Presider at the Lenten Penitential Service…I am the Presider at Benediction with the Blessed Sacrament…I am the Presider at the Rite of Burial.

"Don Ruggero will join those who wish to attend, after a brief reception with the family of the deceased immediately following this Eucharist, as celebrant of the Rite of Burial [or, worse, to celebrate the Rite of Burial] is anything but euphonious.
 
I have no desire to comment on the right or wrong of this, as I am not familiar with the Lectio Divina process. However, I will not that the Cardinal in question is not “changing the liturgy.” The initial article references a single Sunday that this is being done. There is no indication if has permission for this change, and I do not know if such permission is needed. That is all beyond me. Perhaps if this actually affected me I would dig deeper. As it is, I do not think any one has linked the original article.

Lectio Divina: next Sunday’s Mass readings will be different

I get the impression, that contrary to the title, this is not “My way,” as in the Cardinal’s, but something that he is using from elsewhere, an ancient practice.
 
Last edited:
OraLabora said:
I stand corrected. However my main point is valid, that is in the EF the host is indeed touched by others besides the priest.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And I understood that to be your central point. And it is a critical point to be underscored, particularly in the particular environment one sees in this thread.
 
Spyridon said:
Isn’t celebrant essentially synonymous with presider in the context of the Mass?
Click to expand...
No. Not “always.” That’s the point.

“Presider” does not just mean the speaker is trying to be some kind of progressive liberal.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes “presider” is just an accurate use of the vocabulary.
 
I appreciate the clarification of terms. When I started here over a decade ago, I will admit that I was ignorant of such things. I credit Catholic Answers Live with helping me understand some. So I am sympathetic with those who are new to the way the Catholic Church speaks.

Still, there is a lesson not to jump to conclusions in judging priests. I linked the source article above. The action of the Cardinal is being misrepresented. I am not saying there is no issue worthy of discussion, but it is not, “I’ll do it my way.” The reference to the Sinatra song is unfair, at least in my opinion, or at least a heck of a stretch.
 
pnewton said:
I have no desire to comment on the right or wrong of this, as I am not familiar with the Lectio Divina process. However, I will not that the Cardinal in question is not “changing the liturgy.” The initial article references a single Sunday that this is being done. There is no indication if has permission for this change, and I do not know if such permission is needed. That is all beyond me. Perhaps if this actually affected me I would dig deeper. As it is, I do not think any one has linked the original article.

I get the impression, that contrary to the title, this is not “My way,” as in the Cardinal’s, but something that he is using from elsewhere, an ancient practice.
Click to expand...
First of all, it’s important that we get our information from reliable sources. What the good Cardinal said and did is not always what gets reported on the internet.

Nevertheless, this is still not how the Church describes the proclamation of the Gospel at Mass. While there can be some variations, such as either chanting or speaking, in no way is this form permitted to be used at Mass. And given how very clear the last 2 Pontiffs were about upholding the practice that only a deacon (or priest) proclaim the Gospel we know this is not something the Church regards as being of little importance.

Now, maybe there was a dispensation (or some other permission) granted by the Congregation for Divine Worship, or maybe by the Holy Father himself. If that happened, it would be a good thing to mention it. Failing to mention it is an oversight that causes confusion. An oversight on the part of the author or editor of the article.

The authority of the local ordinary (even if he is a Cardinal) falls short of permitting this practice at Mass. Whether the practice is ancient or modern makes no difference. Since it is beyond his competence to allow this, I only hope that he obtained whatever permission is necessary from the Congregation—or even verbal permission from the Holy Father which I think might be readily given, especially if it was for just one Sunday.
 
Lectio Divana is a wonderful way to pray the Gospel, although I do not know if it is appropriate for Mass, since it is not called for in the GIRM. It certainly would provide for more silence in the Mass and more reflection on God’s Word.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for clarifying. I think we were replying at the same time.
 
I have never in my 57 Catholic year heard the Gospel proclaimed by anyone other than a priest or deacon. And never heard of such a thing happening from anyone else, anywhere. Alarmism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top