More liturgical abuse?

[Tim_Kirchoff]

My high school offers daily Mass, and I attend whenever possible, but there are two things I have noticed I’m not entirely sure of. The first is at the sign of peace. The priest comes down from the sanctuary (It’s a small chapel) and shakes hands with the half-dozen or so people attending. I need to know if this is correct, but there is something else more pressing…

At communion, the priest gives everyone the Host, but after recieving the host, the congregation goes up behind the altar and drinks from the chalice, wiping it off afterward, etc. As I understand, this is done to save time, as Mass is in the morning in the half-hour before the first class of the day, so this part is done because of time constraints. I need to know if this is allowable.

 

[John_Higgins]

Oh, it’s an abuse, but don’t let it stop you from attending.

I’ve found that those who attend Mass with the GIRM constantly on their mind, don’t have the Mass on their mind.

John

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Oh, it’s an abuse, but don’t let it stop you from attending.

I’ve found that those who attend Mass with the GIRM constantly on their mind, don’t have the Mass on their mind.

John

Which part? Both?

Is there a way I could bring this up with the priests without sounding like a know-it-all?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

My high school offers daily Mass, and I attend whenever possible, but there are two things I have noticed I’m not entirely sure of. The first is at the sign of peace. The priest comes down from the sanctuary (It’s a small chapel) and shakes hands with the half-dozen or so people attending. I need to know if this is correct, but there is something else more pressing…

At communion, the priest gives everyone the Host, but after recieving the host, the congregation goes up behind the altar and drinks from the chalice, wiping it off afterward, etc. As I understand, this is done to save time, as Mass is in the morning in the half-hour before the first class of the day, so this part is done because of time constraints. I need to know if this is allowable.

The Priest should not leave the sanctuary during a normal Mass.

No one shuld ne permitted to self-communicate from the chalice, especially at the altar. Holy Communion should be under one form only in this case.

 

[Katie1723]

…I’ve found that those who attend Mass with the GIRM constantly on their mind, don’t have the Mass on their mind.
John

I wholeheartedly agree with you!

Kathy

 

[JimR-OCDS]

My high school offers daily Mass, and I attend whenever possible, but there are two things I have noticed I’m not entirely sure of. The first is at the sign of peace. The priest comes down from the sanctuary (It’s a small chapel) and shakes hands with the half-dozen or so people attending. I need to know if this is correct, but there is something else more pressing…

At communion, the priest gives everyone the Host, but after recieving the host, the congregation goes up behind the altar and drinks from the chalice, wiping it off afterward, etc. As I understand, this is done to save time, as Mass is in the morning in the half-hour before the first class of the day, so this part is done because of time constraints. I need to know if this is allowable.

I don’t see abuse here. Mass in a small chapel with a small group of people, can be more inclusive and friendly.

Sounds like you have a good priest.

Jim

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Kirchoff
My high school offers daily Mass, and I attend whenever possible, but there are two things I have noticed I’m not entirely sure of. The first is at the sign of peace. The priest comes down from the sanctuary (It’s a small chapel) and shakes hands with the half-dozen or so people attending. I need to know if this is correct, but there is something else more pressing…

At communion, the priest gives everyone the Host, but after recieving the host, **the congregation goes up behind the altar and drinks from the chalice, **wiping it off afterward, etc. As I understand, this is done to save time, as Mass is in the morning in the half-hour before the first class of the day, so this part is done because of time constraints. I need to know if this is allowable.

I don’t see abuse here. Mass in a small chapel with a small group of people, can be more inclusive and friendly.

Sounds like you have a good priest.

Jim

---

It seems JimR-OCDS — you may have become so desensitized to abuse to ----you don’t recognize it when it hits you on the head.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

---

It seems JimR-OCDS — you may have become so desensitized to abuse to ----you don’t recognize it when it hits you on the head.

No, rather I give the celebrating priest the benefit of the doubt in that he knows what he’s doing, more so than the participants in this forum.

Also, the priest isn’t here to defend his actions, nor are we necessarily given all the details of the situation.

Jim

 

[Walking_Home]

No, rather I give the celebrating priest the benefit of the doubt in that he knows what he’s doing, more so than the participants in this forum.

Also, the priest isn’t here to defend his actions, nor are we necessarily given all the details of the situation.

Jim

---

It seems more than likely —the priest knows what he is doing—which would then leave little doubt that he has become his own authority and the Mass his to manipulate.

RS–2004

[94.] It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.[181] Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.

 

[chicago]

The self communicating shouldn’t happen. I don’t buy the “time saving” argument. Either don’t give communion under both species or have an EMHC offer it. How much longer would it take, really? 1-2 minutes at most? If that?

The way to deal with this is to politiely offer your services in being an EMHC (and maybe recruit a couple of others to do likewise.) Don’t approach it as, “We are doing something wrong which needs to be corrected,” but rather, “Father, I notice that you don’t have anyone to assist with the cup at communion. Could I help? I’d really like to offer my service in that way and I think that there might be others who would, also!” In this way, you’d be seeking a positive solution which could be found acceptable while making people feel involved in a way which ought to be considered commendable by all parties involved.

Exiting the Sancturary to shake hands is questionable. A lot of preists long made a practice of this. More recent norms suggest that it isn’t ideal and should be limited to special occasions when a priest offering the sign of peace to a few special guests (like at a funeral, wedding, or big Mass with important invitees) is appropriate, but ought not be the norm otherwise. However, I really wouldn’t make an issue out of it (at least not now, maybe at some future point when the thought could be better received) and simply accept that it is a relatively small, close environment and a practice which has some history that many priests are accustomed to. As long as they are doing it disceretely and in a limited way (not spending all kinds of time running up and down the aisle to shake everyone’s hand for five minutes) it is something to tolerate and appreciate, instead of fight head on.

You have to choose your battles wisely.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

---

It seems more than likely —the priest knows what he is doing—which would then leave little doubt that he has become his own authority and the Mass his to manipulate.

RS–2004

[94.] It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.[181] Moreover, in this regard, the abuse is to be set aside whereby spouses administer Holy Communion to each other at a Nuptial Mass.

Once again a jump to judgment of the priest, using a literal interpretation of the GIRM, while ignoring the authority of the local Bishop. This Mass was celebrated in a little High-School chapel, were such deviations may in fact be allowed. We don’t know, for we don’t have access to that priest or his Bishop.

Jim

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If a person has a judgmental, condemning spirit in bringing up a potential problem that is not right. . .

But IF there is a real abuse going on, then dismissing it with “it isn’t for ME to question this as obviously the priest MUST have made sure this WAS okay”. . .is not right either.

Look at it this way. Suppose your doctor tells you he is going to do a procedure on your arm. You check the literature that he himself gives you–it says this procedure should not be done. You check with the hospital board of MDs–THEY say it should not be done. You go to see the head of surgery at the hospital–HE says it should not be done.

Now are you just going to sit back and relax because, Hey, your doctor IS a doctor, a profession who’ knows’ the rules. If he is doing it, it MUST be okay?

Or are you going to talk to the doctor himself and get ALL the details? Maybe–just maybe–all the ‘other’ doctors ARE wrong; maybe the literature is old or has an error–maybe your doctor is right. . .but would you bet ‘your arm’ on it without checking it out for yourself?

 

[jpjd]

I understand the need to avoid real liturgical abuse, but the threads on liturgical abuse that appear ad nauseum, nitpicking about this instance or that instance, usually bring to my mind this word: Pharisee.

People…do you really doubt your priest so much? If your priest is so untrustworthy that he would dedicate his life to the priesthood yet so willingly desecrate the Mass, then you should have no hesitation to approach such a man and ask to his face why he is doing what he is doing. Every accused should be able to face his accuser. But, some of the complaints I see here do not involve desecration. What I see on this board is the smearing of the priesthood by pseudo know-it-alls.

Sheesh! Leaving the sanctuary to shake hands does NO HARM whatsoever. Actually, I find that rather welcoming and inclusive of the priest. If you are going to complain, find something that does harm to the worship of God.

Rejoice in the Mass! Don’t be like the person in this quote: "a solemn, unsmiling, sanctimonious old iceberg that looked like he was waiting for a vacancy in the Trinity." (Mark Twain)

 

[Brendan]

Once again a jump to judgment of the priest, using a literal interpretation of the GIRM,
Jim

Oh THAT is classic.

Scripture has deep meaning, literature has deep meaning. Laws do not. The GIRM is Liturgical Law. It has no other meaning that in the literal sense.

Jim, if you got pulled over for doing 70 in a 65 zone, would you critize the officer for having a literal intrpreation of the speed limit sign?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And eating meat on Fridays in Lent does no harm whatsoever, right? Seriously, the action of eating meat on Friday is something that we do any other day with no harm. But we are not supposed to do it on Lenten Fridays. . .not because it is HARMFUL (it isn’t) but because of OBEDIENCE.

The issue truly (IMO) is that of ‘obedience’.

Nobody is ‘smearing’ priests. That is very inflammatory language and presupposes the ANIMUS of other posters --something which on careful readings of the posts has been refuted.

The actions of handshaking in the context of, say, meeting a friend, are praiseworthy. The practice, after all, evolved from offering one’s ‘unarmed’ hand to show friendship.

But according to DOCUMENTATION, the priest is NOT to leave the sanctuary except at certain times, for certain ‘events’ which are very clearly stated.

For a priest to make a daily habit to ‘cross down’ just to ‘shake hands’ with the few in the congregation, knowing that this is NOT in the rubrics. . .means that the priest is ‘trumping’ the rules. It does not matter, really, whether the priest is doing this as an act of willful disobedience (I will shake hands when and WHERE I CHOOSE), or as an act of LOVE (Here is the sign of peace. How I LOVE to shake the hands of my congregation and wish them peace. How I LOVE to feel Christ-like LOVE for them! Surely my showing LOVE is FAR more important that holding STRICT OBEDIENCE of the rules is! Surely God will understand that I do this out of LOVE), etc. Of course, there ARE likely priests who either do not know the rules (for whatever reason) or who honestly feel they are FOLLOWING the rules. . .that is yet another reason why speaking to Father directly is important, for obviously if he does not know he is in error (and priests can err, it is not a sin to say so), then he should be given the opportunity to know the truth, right?

I am NOT condemning the PRIEST or judging him, please realize this. I’m saying that in the act of being disobedient–whether you think it is ‘wrong’ to disobey or ‘right’ to disobey-- you are still being disobedient. And if you are making an honest mistake, wouldn’t you like to know that you were doing so in order to CORRECT IT? I certainly would!

 

[jpjd]

And eating meat on Fridays in Lent does no harm whatsoever, right? Seriously, the action of eating meat on Friday is something that we do any other day with no harm. But we are not supposed to do it on Lenten Fridays. . .not because it is HARMFUL (it isn’t) but because of OBEDIENCE.

The level of nitpicking is the issue here. The priest is shaking hands, as is called for. The big picture is, he is making peace with his brethren. I don’t call that liturgical abuse.

If he should remain in the sanctuary, all well and good; by all means bring it to his attention. But to call it abuse is just absurd.

It reminds me of something that happened in my parish a couple of years ago. My son was a server one Sunday, and started feeling dizzy during the Mass. He left the sanctuary to sit in the sacristy (directly adjacent to the sanctuary) so he wouldn’t faint. When it came time for Communion, the priest went into the sacristy to offer my son Communion. I imagine you would call that liturgical abuse. I call it care and concern.

I really think there is something about Catholicism that attracts or brings out scrupulosity in people.

 

[chicago]

Of course, there ARE likely priests who either do not know the rules (for whatever reason) or who honestly feel they are FOLLOWING the rules. . .that is yet another reason why speaking to Father directly is important, for obviously if he does not know he is in error (and priests can err, it is not a sin to say so), then he should be given the opportunity to know the truth, right?

The problem is that when you are a high school student trying to “school” (even if charitibly so) the priest, it isn’t likely to get you very far. Instead, you’re more apt to be met with polite scorn and nothing will change. One must think incrementally in order to be effective, often.

 

[chicago]

But to call it abuse is just absurd.

This is a good point. Somwhere, somehow, in the last dozen or so years it seems, there has been this craze of calling everything “abuse”. It is an overreaction. There are serious problems, less serious problems, and mere people problems. Then there are things which ought not be problems at all. But labeling everything as “abuse” is likely an overreaction which gets us into the wrong mindset of playing legalistic liturgical cop and missing the forest for the trees.

 

[John_Lilburne]

From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“154. … The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. In the dioceses of the United States of America, for a good reason, on special occasions (for example, in the case of a funeral, a wedding, or when civic leaders are present) the priest may offer the sign of peace to a few of the faithful near the sanctuary. At the same time, in accord with the decisions of the Conference of Bishops, all offer one another a sign that expresses peace, communion, and charity. While the sign of peace is being given, one may say, Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum (The peace of the Lord be with you always), to which the response is Amen.”

From the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:
“[94.] It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.” It them has footnote 181: Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, n. 160.
The GIRM n. 160 has:
“160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.
The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.
When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If a person has a judgmental, condemning spirit in bringing up a potential problem that is not right. . .

But IF there is a real abuse going on, then dismissing it with “it isn’t for ME to question this as obviously the priest MUST have made sure this WAS okay”. . .is not right either.

Look at it this way. Suppose your doctor tells you he is going to do a procedure on your arm. You check the literature that he himself gives you–it says this procedure should not be done. You check with the hospital board of MDs–THEY say it should not be done. You go to see the head of surgery at the hospital–HE says it should not be done.

Now are you just going to sit back and relax because, Hey, your doctor IS a doctor, a profession who’ knows’ the rules. If he is doing it, it MUST be okay?

Or are you going to talk to the doctor himself and get ALL the details? Maybe–just maybe–all the ‘other’ doctors ARE wrong; maybe the literature is old or has an error–maybe your doctor is right. . .but would you bet ‘your arm’ on it without checking it out for yourself?

But in this case, the OP didn’t check with the acused priest, or other priest. People in this forum are far from being experts on the liturgy, nor do they know what a diocesan Bishop has allowed.

Jim