Parts of the weekday mass [edited]

[hilde_the_dog]

One of our new priests (although he has been a priest for more than ten years) at weekday masses does not say a homily, recite a prayer of the faithful or allow the sign of peace to other members in attendence. This has shocked and annoyed many but I contend that he is within the rules and has jetisoned those parts deemed optional. (He is very traditional, no liberal leanings here). What parts are optional and what is required? Where is this found?

 

[Phemie]

The homily is ‘recommended’ at all weekday Masses but not obligatory. I see nothing in the GIRM to suggest that the Prayers of the Faithful are optional, but the Sign of Peace is optional.

 

[brigid12]

The majority of the weekday Masses I’ve assisted at had no homily and no Sign of Peace.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

He is the first Priest that almost never has a homily at the weekday masses. Most of the masses I go to do have homilies and sign of peace. But his never do and the prayer of the fiathful is gone as well.

 

[stbruno]

If this priest is an associate pastor, mention it to your pastor how much you wish this priest would consider doing a homily.As far as the other parts of the mass…they are all required, but for the sign of peace, the gestures can be eliminated as long as the priest says… The peace prayers…Peace be with you etc…

 

[hilde_the_dog]

he does say peace be with you then we respond and he immediately moves into the Angus Dei - as I recall. Is the homily, prayer of the fiathful and hand shake optional? I did not see anything directly stating this in the GIRM

 

[Phemie]

he does say peace be with you then we respond and he immediately moves into the Angus Dei - as I recall. Is the homily, prayer of the fiathful and hand shake optional? I did not see anything directly stating this in the GIRM

The Sign of Peace is definitely optional. It’s left up to the celebrant. I find that on weekdays this optional rite degenerates into a major walkabout, everyone endeavouring to greet everyone in the church when it’s supposed to be simply a sober dignified shaking hands (or whatever gesture the parish does) with the people next to us in the pew. That may be why that priest skips it as it is his right to do.

The Homily is strongly encouraged but not mandatory.

The Prayers of the Faithful are mandatory.

 

[SianTeresa]

He is not supposed to leave the sanctuary after the consecration. If there is an altar server, he can make the sign of peace with him (or her). Otherwise, he is liturgically spot-on not to leave the altar at this point. I imagine that it is concern for following this rule that is causing him to omit the sign of peace, rather than a personal preference. Unless there is an altar server: in which case he is omitting it because he prefers to.

 

[ddd86]

I have never attended a weekday Mass where the priest said a homily. Other than a Holy Day. At our Parish, depending on the priest we sometimes have Bidding Prayers but not always.

Also, the sign of Peace is optional.

So, I’d say what you’re experiencing sounds about right, well, compared to what I’m used to with regard to our local customs.

 

[puzzleannie]

One of our new priests (although he has been a priest for more than ten years) at weekday masses does not say a homily, recite a prayer of the faithful or allow the sign of peace to other members in attendence. This has shocked and annoyed many but I contend that he is within the rules and has jetisoned those parts deemed optional. (He is very traditional, no liberal leanings here). What parts are optional and what is required? Where is this found?

the creed is not recited at daily Mass
individual intentions are optional although the collect prayer is not
there is no absolute obligation for a homily
the sign of peace is always optional, although the prayer is not
there is also no requirement whatever for music or singing of any kind at daily Mass. In our parish we recite the entrance and communion antiphons,–which actually are supposed to take precedence over singing hymns.

 

[John_Lilburne]

… I see nothing in the GIRM to suggest that the Prayers of the Faithful are optional, but the Sign of Peace is optional.

The GIRM has, about the Prayer of the Faithful:
“69. … It is fitting that such a prayer be included, as a rule, in
Masses celebrated with a congregation, so that petitions will be offered for the holy Church, for civil authorities, for those weighed down by various needs, for all men and women, and for the
salvation of the whole world.”

I think it is reasonable to interpret “fitting” and “as a rule” as “its encouraged, but optional”.

Regarding the Sign of Peace, the GIRM has:
“154. … Afterwards, when appropriate, the priest adds, Offerte vobis pacem (Let us offer each other the sign of peace).
The priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration.”

Also “181. … the deacon, if it is appropriate, invites all to exchange the sign of peace.” Also in “Mass With Only One Minister”: “266. … The priest gives the sign of peace to the
minister, if appropriate.”

So it seems that a decision can be made that the Sign of Peace is not appropriate, there should not be an invitation and it should not be made. (To look up the GIRM, go to romanrite.com/girm.html )

 

[japhy]

“69. … It is fitting that such a prayer be included, as a rule, in Masses celebrated with a congregation, so that petitions will be offered for the holy Church, for civil authorities, for those weighed down by various needs, for all men and women, and for the salvation of the whole world.”

I think it is reasonable to interpret “fitting” and “as a rule” as “its encouraged, but optional”.

“As a rule” means it’s optional? I’m not sure I agree.

In oratione universali, seu oratione fidelium, populus, verbo Dei in fide suscepto quodammodo respondet et, sui sacerdotii baptismalis munus exercens, preces Deo offert pro salute omnium. Expedit ut huiusmodi oratio in Missis cum populo de more habeatur, ita ut obsecrationes fiant pro sancta Ecclesia, pro iis qui in potestate nos regunt, pro iis qui variis premuntur necessitatibus, ac pro omnibus hominibus totiusque mundi salute.

That’s the Latin for GIRM 69. I’ll get back to this later.

 

[japhy]

Expedit ut huiusmodi oratio in Missis cum populo de more habeatur, ita ut obsecrationes fiant pro sancta Ecclesia, pro iis qui in potestate nos regunt, pro iis qui variis premuntur necessitatibus, ac pro omnibus hominibus totiusque mundi salute.

Ok, upon further review, in the words of Fr. Z, “It is in the first place to be borne in mind that the word expedit does not constitute an obligation, but a suggestion…”

 

[FrDavid96]

One of our new priests (although he has been a priest for more than ten years) at weekday masses does not say a homily, recite a prayer of the faithful or allow the sign of peace to other members in attendence. This has shocked and annoyed many but I contend that he is within the rules and has jetisoned those parts deemed optional. (He is very traditional, no liberal leanings here). What parts are optional and what is required? Where is this found?

To not include a homily at a daily Mass is entirely within the right of the priest celebrating.

Earlier posts are correct in that the General Intercessions should be added, but not strictly speaking must be added.

The Rite of Peace is always done, at every Mass. This is not an option. However, as for the actual “Sign of Peace” (ie the handshake), liturgical law specifically says that it may be added if it seems opportune. Therefore, the priest is not ommitting the sign of peace, he is choosing not to exercise the option of adding it. That might sound overly technical, but it’s an important point.

Here’s the actual words in Latin:
Deinde, pro opportunitate, diaconus, vel sacerdos, subiungit: Offerte vobis pacem.

Now for a translation:
Then/next, if it seems opportune, the deacon, or priest, may add: (let us) offer the sign of peace

That quote is directly from the Sacramentary. The translation is my own. The official English translation reads “Then the deacon (or the priest) may add:”

 

[thistle]

“As a rule” means it’s optional? I’m not sure I agree.

In oratione universali, seu oratione fidelium, populus, verbo Dei in fide suscepto quodammodo respondet et, sui sacerdotii baptismalis munus exercens, preces Deo offert pro salute omnium. Expedit ut huiusmodi oratio in Missis cum populo de more habeatur, ita ut obsecrationes fiant pro sancta Ecclesia, pro iis qui in potestate nos regunt, pro iis qui variis premuntur necessitatibus, ac pro omnibus hominibus totiusque mundi salute.

That’s the Latin for GIRM 69. I’ll get back to this later.

I always use the expression “as a rule” to mean “generally speaking” which does not mean mandatory.

 

[Aramis]

I always use the expression “as a rule” to mean “generally speaking” which does not mean mandatory.

“As a rule” expands out to “It is expected to be done this way”… with the implication that there might be exceptions.

As a rule, one stops at red lights. (Emergency Services and criminals might not.)

As a rule, one does not eat for an hour before mass; if one is on medications that require it, however, it is permitted to eat before mass, and if one is a cleric between two masses, the fast is also waived.

This is normative use of the phrase “As a rule” implies one of two modes: the way things are expected to be, or the way things generally are. Neither truly implies optionality, but the phrase itself does imply exptions.

 

[FrDavid96]

Summary:

As for the General Intercessions, if the priest omits them at a daily Mass (or even at a Sunday Mass, “with good reason”) he is not acting illicitly.

Another point to keep in mind is that those intercessions are only “as a rule done” in Masses with a Congregation. (of course they may be done)

Since the priest is quite clearly given license to omit them in one form of the Mass (sine populo), this adds weight to the argument that he may likewise do so in a Mass with a congregation (cum populo) for a good reason.