Priest inviting the Faithful from the pews to state their intentions

[ConstantineTG]

even if you could explain it away like that, it still is quite clear that the girm envisions that one person read the intercessions. lets go with both the spirit of the law, and the letter

Actually no, the GIRM is not clear that “one” is a number and not “belonging to”. I know that you are trying to say that this is wrong, but you made the wrong argument based on a wrong interpretation on what is on the GIRM, This would have clearly stated that what has happened in the OP’s situation is wrong, from your post and I will highlight what you should have stressed on…

actually, the girm is quite clear:

They are announced from the ambo or from another suitable place,
by the Deacon or by a cantor, a reader, or one of the lay faithful.

The people, for their part, stand and give expression to their prayer
either by an invocation said in common after each intention or by praying
in silence

There are only 4 people that are possibly allowed to read the intercessions:

the deacon
a cantor
a reader
one of the faithful

it does not say: the lay faithful. it says one of the lay faithful.

it is quite clear. this is not allowed.

 

[Inquiringperson]

And in Masses televised from the Vatican we regularly see 5 or 10 people queued up to read one prayer each, and each in a different language! As another poster said, I don’t think this is a hill worth dying on.

I figure the Pope and the CDWDS allowed them to do so, so people can understand the prayers of the faithful in their language. I’m not sure about America, so I’ll contact my Bishop’s office or the USCCB one day.

 

[PatriceA]

heres what happened

• i posted it
• PatriceA replied to my post
• i deleted my post because it had some weird formatting issues
• i reposted the same post with the fixed formatting issues

You can explain away all you want. Still, the OP stated it was a retreat, not a regular parish mass, where the intentions of the congregation could be formed before hand (as usually comes from the parish office or some other authority.) Even the GIRM says one of the lay faithful can offer an intention, it doesn’t say ONE and ONLY ONE can offer an intention. There are times it is appropriate that the lay parishoners, even from the pews, can and should offer the prayer intentions. A retreat would be one of those occasions. A daily mass of a small number would be another.

 

[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 :

“138. After the recitation of the Creed, the priest, standing at the chair with hands joined, by means of a brief introduction invites the faithful to participate in the Prayer of the Faithful. Then the cantor, the lector, or another person announces the intentions from the ambo or from some other suitable place while facing the people, who take their part by responding in supplication.”

My bold text highlights that it is to be one person, who is not in a pew, but facing the people.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

At my last parish, the pastor always asked people to speak their intentions, and more than half of them were “for a special intention.” I’ve always wondered why, if they don’t want to say the intention, why say anything out loud?

 

[Inquiringperson]

From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :

“138. After the recitation of the Creed, the priest, standing at the chair with hands joined, by means of a brief introduction invites the faithful to participate in the Prayer of the Faithful. Then the cantor, the lector, or another person announces the intentions from the ambo or from some other suitable place while facing the people, who take their part by responding in supplication.”

My bold text highlights that it is to be one person, who is not in a pew, but facing the people.

That makes sense.

 

[Newbie2]

Our pastor does this during weekday masses, but he suggests that instead of “For my Aunt Tillie who has the shingles” or “For my Uncle Zeke who has the St. Vitus Dance” that you say “For all those with serious medical problems.” This is more inclusive and reduces the need for repetition.

Yeppers

even if you could explain it away like that, it still is quite clear that the girm envisions that one person read the intercessions. lets go with both the spirit of the law, and the letter

The prayers of the faithful are written in each parish every week. It is not all that abusive to have the congregation state them at the time instead of writing them out ahead. It is often impractical for many reasons as people have mentioned – repetitive or inappropriate prayers, the whole thing dragging on, or someone getting left out and having their feelings hurt. If the priest wants to include the intentions of the teens, he should ask a few of the teen group to write up intentions each week.

Yep. IF they can be written in advance, it is best to do so. During our weekday masses, we are invited to speak out our individual intentions. To date, I’m not aware of any irregularities in doing this; it’s a matter of practicality and also of putting a more intimate setting for our weekday masses.

While during weekend mass, it’s impractical to announce all the intentions, however, it does take away some of the personal nature of our petitions. Joe Catholic fell off a ladder this morning and broke his hip. His situation is certainly worthy of a “shout-out” (not literally) in weekday mass, is it not?

 

[jmcrae]

Yeppers

Yep. IF they can be written in advance, it is best to do so.

There is already a book of them that is supposed to be used at weekday Masses.

During our weekday masses, we are invited to speak out our individual intentions. To date, I’m not aware of any irregularities in doing this; it’s a matter of practicality and also of putting a more intimate setting for our weekday masses.

“Not aware of any irregularities”?

Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us? The rule on this has been posted at least twice already - the answer is “no.”

That having been said, if a priest chooses to break the rule, and the congregation goes along with him, who am I to argue with him. It’s not something I’d get into a fight with a priest over, but at the same time, the rule itself is very clear - it is not to be done. One person, facing the congregation, reads out the petitions from the book, or else those given to him by the parish secretary.

While during weekend mass, it’s impractical to announce all the intentions, however, it does take away some of the personal nature of our petitions. Joe Catholic fell off a ladder this morning and broke his hip. His situation is certainly worthy of a “shout-out” (not literally) in weekday mass, is it not?

Actually, the time of prayer is not supposed to be a kind of veiled form of gossip or news-sharing.

The congregation should be made aware of the accident in an actual announcement before his name comes into the prayers - perhaps at the end of Mass, or at the beginning of Mass, and then people can pray for Joe in their hearts, and offer a Mass for him later in the week.

 

[Newbie2]

There is already a book of them that is supposed to be used at weekday Masses.

“Not aware of any irregularities”?

Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us? The rule on this has been posted at least twice already - the answer is “no.”

That having been said, if a priest chooses to break the rule, and the congregation goes along with him, who am I to argue with him. It’s not something I’d get into a fight with a priest over, but at the same time, the rule itself is very clear - it is not to be done. One person, facing the congregation, reads out the petitions from the book, or else those given to him by the parish secretary.

Actually, the time of prayer is not supposed to be a kind of veiled form of gossip or news-sharing.

The congregation should be made aware of the accident in an actual announcement before his name comes into the prayers - perhaps at the end of Mass, or at the beginning of Mass, and then people can pray for Joe in their hearts, and offer a Mass for him later in the week.

And it’s not, at least in our parish.

Our priest leaves it open for us to share our intentions, not “gossip” or “news-sharing”. We are actually praying for these people. It’s somewhat insulting that you would characterize the heartfelt intentions of our parishioners as such.

Although it my be “against the rules”, I find it an excellent pastoral practice. Nobody abuses it, in terms of things like letting kids say “for my pet hamster, who died yesterday…”. BTW, these are in addition to the general intentions that the priest or deacon states…and perhaps I should clarify that I meant such in using the term “irregularities”. I suppose I could have used a better term, my bad.

And yes, I’m reading the same thread as the rest of you, and I’m quite sure you know that; no need for sarcasm.

Most of them are offering prayers for a son or daughter in the military, recently deceased relatives who are not parish members, recent illnesses or accidents, etc.

IF we added all those intentions to the weekend masses, the intentions would go on forever. While this does not excuse the practice from the “rules”, again, it IMHO is an excellent pastoral practice.

And yep, I agree that it’s not something worthwhile to get in a fight with the priest over.

 

[thomas_jd]

It is permitted to express personal intentions .Read above posts! A suitable location can be a pew , facing the people requires turning around to be heard by all , no amplification in the pews.
On must always be CLEAR on this interpitation issue ,so as to leave room for clarification
that seems to be lacking on so many, many discussions.

 

[FatHead]

It is permitted to express personal intentions .Read above posts! A suitable location can be a pew , facing the people requires turning around to be heard by all , no amplification in the pews.
On must always be CLEAR on this interpitation issue ,so as to leave room for clarification
that seems to be lacking on so many, many discussions.

jmcrae, thomas jd,

seriously? What the heck? The church has said no to this issue. you can talk your way out of it all you want, but the girm is still clear.

I see to clear sides to this issue: Those who say you can, and those who say you cant

those who say you can have not posted any documentation supporting their side.

those who say you cant have repeatedly quoted the girm which implicitly states (but very clearly) that this is not allowed.

we are being CLEAR. The girm is quite clear. you cant just throw out intentions from the pews

 

[FatHead]

You can explain away all you want. Still, the OP stated it was a retreat, not a regular parish mass, where the intentions of the congregation could be formed before hand (as usually comes from the parish office or some other authority.) Even the GIRM says one of the lay faithful can offer an intention, it doesn’t say ONE and ONLY ONE can offer an intention. There are times it is appropriate that the lay parishoners, even from the pews, can and should offer the prayer intentions. A retreat would be one of those occasions. A daily mass of a small number would be another.

a retreat is still not an excuse to do away with the rules

why do people always say: “that music is appropriate for a youth retreat?”

WHY DO YOU PUT ALL THE CR*PPY MUSIC AT THE RETREATS?? THEY NEED GOOD LITURGY THERE TOO! IF YOU CANT GO TO A REVERENT MASS AT A RETREAT, THERE’S SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG

 

[FatHead]

oh yeah, theres one more thing in the girm that implies that the people arent to do it. below is the section on what the people are to do.

The people, for their part, stand and give expression to their prayer either by an invocation said in common after each intention or by praying in silence.

it gives two options for how the people may participate: the response, or silence. two options.

 

[MarkThompson]

jmcrae, thomas jd,

seriously? What the heck? The church has said no to this issue. you can talk your way out of it all you want, but the girm is still clear.

I see to clear sides to this issue: Those who say you can, and those who say you cant

those who say you can have not posted any documentation supporting their side.

those who say you cant have repeatedly quoted the girm which implicitly states (but very clearly) that this is not allowed.

we are being CLEAR. The girm is quite clear. you cant just throw out intentions from the pews

Nothing is clear at all, especially not the GIRM. Although the English translation says “one,” the normative Latin merely says “… vel a fideli laico,” not “… vel ab uno tantum ex fidelibus laicis” or something like that. I think the intent was to add another option, not (for instance) to prohibit having two lectors alternate petitions. Correspondingly, paragraph 30 of the General Introduction to the Lectionary provides: “The celebrant introduces the prayer; a deacon, another minister, or some of the faithful may propose intentions that are short and phrased with a measure of freedom.”

Thus, if memory serves me right, the Directory for Masses with Children suggests having them each read a petition, so (although the directory is generally terrible) I don’t think anyone is interpreting this passage of the GIRM as somehow intending to express “only one.” I think it is also a common practice in multilingual Masses, including many Papal Masses if memory serves me right, to have petitions read by various speakers of different languages. This is perfectly permissible.

 

[DianaCC]

oh yeah, theres one more thing in the girm that implies that the people arent to do it.

And I’ll add a third: common sense about the internal logic of the thing. What are we doing when we ad-lib petitions? We are personalizing the mass. The mass is common property. We live in a consumerist culture that tumbles relentlessly towards the absolutization of individual experience and the manufacturing of simulated intimacy. So it makes perfect sense that (1) ad-libbed petitions are rampant in affluent western democracies and (2) are de rigueur in “intimate” retreat masses that have been desacralized in the name of relevance.

:hey_bud:

 

[thomas_jd]

jmcrae, thomas jd,

seriously? What the heck? The church has said no to this issue. you can talk your way out of it all you want, but the girm is still clear.

I see to clear sides to this issue: Those who say you can, and those who say you cant

those who say you can have not posted any documentation supporting their side.

those who say you cant have repeatedly quoted the girm which implicitly states (but very clearly) that this is not allowed.

we are being CLEAR. The girm is quite clear. you cant just throw out intentions from the pews

The girm is clear. Of course intentions are allowed from the pews. The weekday masses is often the time that the petitons are read from a suitable place. Sunday mass includes a Gloria, not usual at the morning mass.
As the ministers are usually employed on Sunday masses, they are not scheduled ministers at the daily mass, thus the petition from the pews!

 

[Newbie2]

jmcrae, thomas jd,

seriously? What the heck? The church has said no to this issue. you can talk your way out of it all you want, but the girm is still clear.

I see to clear sides to this issue: Those who say you can, and those who say you cant

those who say you can have not posted any documentation supporting their side.

those who say you cant have repeatedly quoted the girm which implicitly states (but very clearly) that this is not allowed.

we are being CLEAR. The girm is quite clear. you cant just throw out intentions from the pews

Actually it can be done; it is being done. I think what you’re trying to say is that it cannot be done within the mass rubrics?

 

[Newbie2]

And I’ll add a third: common sense about the internal logic of the thing. What are we doing when we ad-lib petitions? We are personalizing the mass. The mass is common property. We live in a consumerist culture that tumbles relentlessly towards the absolutization of individual experience and the manufacturing of simulated intimacy. So it makes perfect sense that (1) ad-libbed petitions are rampant in affluent western democracies and (2) are de rigueur in “intimate” retreat masses that have been desacralized in the name of relevance.

:hey_bud:

Question:

What is the difference, in a “personalizing” context, between submitting an intention for the secretary to add to the prayers of the faithful and someone saying their intention directly within, say, a weekday mass? Are not both “personalizing” the mass? (Assuming, of course, that the intentions are not “frivolous” i.e. Hammy the Hampster died this morning)

 

[BellsSmells]

The intention I don’t like someone to say is: “for a special intention.” I would never voice approval of something like that. They might be asking for something nefarious.

 

[FatHead]

Actually it can be done; it is being done. I think what you’re trying to say is that it cannot be done within the mass rubrics?

obviously. did you really need to ask that question, or are you bringing out your inner smart alek?