New Church, Novel Practices

[Chris_R]

Our parish just moved into a beautiful new church (yesterday was our 2nd Sunday in the new building). I noticed yesterday a couple of things that were very different from what I’ve grown accustomed to and wonder if anyone here can offer some insights.

1. For the procession, a cross (rather than a crucifix) is now used. I thought this was strange but didn’t consider it a big deal because there is a huge, beautiful crucifix above the alter. But then I noticed…
2. The crucifix is missing the wound in Jesus’ side and the depiction is of Our Lord alive on the cross, gazing upwards. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this before.
3. The new tabernacle is spectactular, but we no longer have the candle that I’m accustomed to seeing.

I assume that all of the above must be acceptable (since Cardinal DiNardo, our bishop, himself presided over the fist mass). Right?

 

[puzzleannie]

not every Corpus has graphic depictions of the wounds of Christ
the processional cross is irrelavant since there is a crucifix
the tabernacle light is not mandatory, although it certainly helps
my guess is if this was the dedication and Eucharist was being celebrated for the first time that the Blessed Sacrament was not reposed in the tabernacle, so no light.

 

[Corki]

I assume that all of the above must be acceptable (since Cardinal DiNardo, our bishop, himself presided over the fist mass). Right?

That’s not a safe assumption. The Cardinal would have presided because he was invited. I am in that diocese and the Cardinal usually sends a document that outlines how Mass is to be celebrated - for example, if he is bringing his own MC. But he doesn’t get to dictate the set-up of the interior of the Church.

Theoretically, someone in the diocese has to approve the plans and the budget for each new Church. But since I know we have Churches in this diocese that have been built without Confessionals and with other oddities, I am not sure how much attention the diocese gives to the details. There is not reason to assume that anyone in the diocese approved of the style of the processional cross or the placement of candles.

Although I rarely disagree with Puzzleannie, there is a canon law requirement for a tablernacle lamp, but it doesn’t have to be a candle.

Can. 940 A special lamp which indicates and honors the presence of Christ is to shine continuously before a tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved.

Of course, as she noted, if the tabernacle was empty, no light would be lit.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

1. For the procession, a cross (rather than a crucifix) is now used. I thought this was strange but didn’t consider it a big deal because there is a huge, beautiful crucifix above the alter.

As long as there is a crucifix as part of the sanctuary then there’s no problem.

1. The crucifix is missing the wound in Jesus’ side and the depiction is of Our Lord alive on the cross, gazing upwards. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this before.

Each crucifix is slightly different. No problem here.
Remember, the wound in Christ’s side occured after he had died. If the crucifix depeicts Jesus on the cross before death, as it appears to do, then it would be correct not to show the side wound.

1. The new tabernacle is spectactular, but we no longer have the candle that I’m accustomed to seeing.

If this was the first Mass there then perhaps the tabernacle was empty and thus there was no sanctuary lamp lit.
Or perhaps its just in a slightly different location now and you just didn’t see it.

I assume that all of the above must be acceptable (since Cardinal DiNardo, our bishop, himself presided over the fist mass). Right?

Other than the “missing” sanctuary lamp there’s nothing wrong. And even that might corrected shortly.

 

[FatHead]

Our parish just moved into a beautiful new church (yesterday was our 2nd Sunday in the new building). I noticed yesterday a couple of things that were very different from what I’ve grown accustomed to and wonder if anyone here can offer some insights.

1. For the procession, a cross (rather than a crucifix) is now used. I thought this was strange but didn’t consider it a big deal because there is a huge, beautiful crucifix above the alter. But then I noticed…
2. The crucifix is missing the wound in Jesus’ side and the depiction is of Our Lord alive on the cross, gazing upwards. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this before.
3. The new tabernacle is spectactular, but we no longer have the candle that I’m accustomed to seeing.

I assume that all of the above must be acceptable (since Cardinal DiNardo, our bishop, himself presided over the fist mass). Right?

wow. too bad. none of those things should have happened. dont assume just because the cardinal came means its ok.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

wow. too bad. none of those things should have happened. dont assume just because the cardinal came means its ok.

Actually everything but the lack of a sanctuary lamp is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Chris_R]

Thx folks. Sorry not to be more clear regarding the tabernacle light – this was the second Sunday in the new church (so it was not the first mass). I’ll look harder for it next Sunday.

Apart from these novelties (from my perspective, not having seen any of the above before), it is a stunningly beautiful church. I couldn’t find pics on the web that do it justice, but here is the best I could find if anyone is interested:
ourtribune.com/article.php?id=12358

They really pulled it off nicely, even though it is immense it feels warm & has great accoustics. It is nearly as large as the new cathedral in downtown Houston (which is a really cold feeling, modern church with terrible accoustics).

 

[promethius]

Thx folks. Sorry not to be more clear regarding the tabernacle light – this was the second Sunday in the new church (so it was not the first mass). I’ll look harder for it next Sunday.

Like the other posters said, it still could mean the tabernacle was empty (surprise influx of requests for Eucharist to be delivered to a hospital or something), or it could be that you didn’t see it.

 

[PacoG]

Actually everything but the lack of a sanctuary lamp is perfectly acceptable.

It might be that the sanctuary lamp hasn’t been delivered yet. Or the priest might be waiting for someone to ask him so he can volunteer that person to buy it for the parish.

At my childhood parish, many moons ago, we used to have a pastor that was so good with people that when you asked him a question about something, he would use that a way of getting people to do something for the parish. When I was an altar boy, I complained that there was wax on my cassock. Next thing I knew, my brother, the two other altar boys and I were taking our cassocks home to be washed by our mothers. Another time, I ended up taking the consecration bells home to be polished. One time when my mother was a lector and she noticed a snared thread of the priest’s chasuble, she wound up taking it home to mend the vestment. Anytime, the parish needed something, the pastor was able to get a parishioner to volunteer to buy, wash, mend, repair, clean, polish it without having to dip into the parish treasury.

Some priests are very good at building that sense of stewardship. The priest maybe trying to do that.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

It might be that the sanctuary lamp hasn’t been delivered yet. Or the priest might be waiting for someone to ask him so he can volunteer that person to buy it for the parish.
Some priests are very good at building that sense of stewardship. The priest maybe trying to do that.

I’d say if it’s missing then the reason is more likely one of shipping than waiting for someone to purchase it. Given that it’s a new consturction I’m sure there were plenty of memorial options for purchase and that the sanctuary stand/lamp would have been one of them. I’d find it odd there were enough donations/dedications to build the place and furnish almost everything inside except the santuary lamp.

But delayed shipping is indeed another possible option!

 

[At_Trent]

"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken him?” -Pope Pius XII

… this was just the first thing that came to mind

 

[Philomeena]

Oh! That is the parish I attended for a few years…How nice to see the new church. When I moved 11 years ago, it was bursting at the seams…it was standing room only 6 people deep.
I do remember that the church did not have kneelers back then. It was carpeted so kneeling was not an issue.
I wish you blessings in your new spiritual home.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

That’s not a safe assumption. The Cardinal would have presided because he was invited. I am in that diocese and the Cardinal usually sends a document that outlines how Mass is to be celebrated - for example, if he is bringing his own MC. But he doesn’t get to dictate the set-up of the interior of the Church.

Theoretically, someone in the diocese has to approve the plans and the budget for each new Church. But since I know we have Churches in this diocese that have been built without Confessionals and with other oddities, I am not sure how much attention the diocese gives to the details. There is not reason to assume that anyone in the diocese approved of the style of the processional cross or the placement of candles.

.

In fact, the Bishop of the Diocese MUST approve the entire structure of any new church that is bu9lt within his diocese. He has to sign off on the plans, and the church MUST be built according to the plans that he has approved.

Most Dioceses DO have a committee, or a small group that actually goes over the plans, and makes recommendations to the Bishop, but the Bishop (or the Auxilliary of there is one) MUST give the final approval.

Keep in mind that technically, the church “belongs” to the Bishop, and not to the parish.

 

[Corki]

In fact, the Bishop of the Diocese MUST approve the entire structure of any new church that is bu9lt within his diocese. He has to sign off on the plans, and the church MUST be built according to the plans that he has approved.

Most Dioceses DO have a committee, or a small group that actually goes over the plans, and makes recommendations to the Bishop, but the Bishop (or the Auxilliary of there is one) MUST give the final approval.

Keep in mind that technically, the church “belongs” to the Bishop, and not to the parish.

I was giving our Bishop the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t really approve the Church with no confessionals, the one that has Jesus nailed to the wall instead of a crucifix or the one with the glass tabernacle in the back of the Church in a glass room.

Now you have made me sad.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Keep in mind that technically, the church “belongs” to the Bishop, and not to the parish.

Not exactly. Parishes are their own juridic person under canon law. A pastor is canonically in charge of the parish and can even canonically appeal against the bishop. Bishops still have many rights over parishes but it would be untrue to say that the parish “belongs” to the bishop. For example, bishops cannot simply “seize” parish assests nor can they interfer in the canonically legitimate running of the parish by the pastor.

 

[Phemie]

Not exactly. Parishes are their own juridic person under canon law. A pastor is canonically in charge of the parish and can even canonically appeal against the bishop. Bishops still have many rights over parishes but it would be untrue to say that the parish “belongs” to the bishop. For example, bishops cannot simply “seize” parish assests nor can they interfer in the canonically legitimate running of the parish by the pastor.

But doesn’t the church and the grounds belong to the diocese? The diocese sold parcels of ‘parish land’ and the money went to the diocesan coffers, not the parish ones. Even our bank accounts are in the name of the Episcopal Corporation/Our Lady of XYZ and the bishop is the primary signatory.

Of course the laws in Canada may be quite different.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

But doesn’t the church and the grounds belong to the diocese?

No, canonically they belong to the parish. If a parish is closed then the assets/proceeds go to the receiving parish unless there is no reasonable receiving parish and then and only then does the bishop/diocese get the assets/proceeds.

The diocese sold parcels of ‘parish land’ and the money went to the diocesan coffers, not the parish ones.

Some bishops have violated canon law by seizing parish assets and no one ever appealed. However, there are exceptions. If the bishop is the civil legal owner of the assets then under civil law the proceeds would go to him but he should then distribute them to the receiving parish (canon 121). Also, if the parish owes the diocese money then the diocese can claim “first dibs” on the proceeds of any sale.
And, as previously mentioned, if there is no reasonable receiving parish then the bishop/diocese can absorb the assets/proceeds.

Even our bank accounts are in the name of the Episcopal Corporation/Our Lady of XYZ and the bishop is the primary signatory.

That would be a civil legal issue. In the USA some dioceses are what’s called corporation sole in which the bishop is named the civil legal owner of all parish assets. The Vatican discourages this model since its technically not in accordance with canon law.

Of course the laws in Canada may be quite different.

Once again, there’s civil law and then there’s canon law. Perhaps its impossible/problematic under Canadian law to have each parish be a separate corporation. But under canon law the parish is its own distinct juridic person with the pastor as its head.

Here’s an article that addresses a situation in the Dallas diocese:
Bishop Charles V. Graham was acting in accordance with canon law of the Catholic church when he told a court that he is not the owner of parish properties…

 

[ProVobis]

But doesn’t the church and the grounds belong to the diocese? The diocese sold parcels of ‘parish land’ and the money went to the diocesan coffers, not the parish ones. Even our bank accounts are in the name of the Episcopal Corporation/Our Lady of XYZ and the bishop is the primary signatory.

Of course the laws in Canada may be quite different.

I may be wrong but I was under the presumption that the Catholic Church “owns” the property (church and school buildings, hospitals, cemeteries, other land, etc.) and the bishops are trustees of said property. If the bishops technically owned it, then there would have to be a transfer of ownership to the next bishop of the diocese. I don’t think this happens.

But whatever, this can vary from country to country though.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

There is a great deal of talk of bishops owning things. I believe that it is the diocese that is the juridic person that owns diocesan property rather than the bishop. Of course, the bishop is the natural person that represents the diocese. When a bishop retires, is transferred to another diocese, dies, etc. it isn’t necessary to transfer ownership to the new bishop. This is because the property belongs to the diocese. This is what I understand of canon law. Under the civil law of the country things may be different. In England and Wales it is still the diocese that owns the property. To give each diocese a legal identity under English Law, each one is set up as a charity. The natural persons who exercise the powers of this legal person are a board of trustees. In each case the bishop is one of these and appoints the others.

Likewise in parishes, under canon law, the parish is a juridic person that can acquire, own and dispose of property. The parish priest is the natural person acting for this juridic person. This can become blurred because under our civil law the parish is legally part of the same charitable trust as the diocese.

Parishes have, under canon law, separate rights to property. If the bishop or diocese acts contrary to canon law there is provision for the parish to take legal action against the bishop and/or diocese.

 

[FatHead]

I was giving our Bishop the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t really approve the Church with no confessionals, the one that has Jesus nailed to the wall instead of a crucifix or the one with the glass tabernacle in the back of the Church in a glass room.

Now you have made me sad.

btw, a glass tabernacle is wrong look at girm 314 if you dont belive me