Priest inviting the Faithful from the pews to state their intentions

[Phemie]

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.

This is why in our parish we have an intention for

1. The Church
2. The Community
3. The military
4. The sick (we will mention someone who’s gravely ill if the family has requested it)
5. Those who’ve died (we’ll mention a recently deceased person if the family has requested it)
6. The person for whom the Mass is being offered
7. Personal intentions (which we give them a few moments to make silently) and all the intentions written in the “book of prayer” which we keep at the back of the church and in which our parishioners write their specific intentions.

 

[Newbie2]

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

I don’t have an inner one…it’s external.

 

[sojo]

I used to go to daily Mass at the Cathedral in San Francisco. It was very early, and we met in the small chapel behind the big public chapel. Every so often the Archbishop or one of the auxiliary bishops celebrated the Mass, and both the Archbishop and all the aux. bishops asked for intentions from the faithful be announced out loud. We were a tiny group, and the setting was intimate. But if an archbishop did it, it can’t be too awful a thing to have happen, can it?

I believe it was the Archbishop who came before Cardinal Levada… I’m not sure now.

 

[jmcrae]

As the ministers are usually employed on Sunday masses, they are not scheduled ministers at the daily mass, thus the petition from the pews!

My experience of weekday Masses is that the petitions are read out either by the person who proclaimed the First Reading and the Psalm, or else by the priest himself.

There is no “need” to have people do them from the pews. Some priests allow this for whatever reason, but it is certainly not “instead of” assigning someone to read out the prayers, since the priest can do this himself, or else get the reader to do it.

 

[FatHead]

I used to go to daily Mass at the Cathedral in San Francisco. It was very early, and we met in the small chapel behind the big public chapel. Every so often the Archbishop or one of the auxiliary bishops celebrated the Mass, and both the Archbishop and all the aux. bishops asked for intentions from the faithful be announced out loud. We were a tiny group, and the setting was intimate. But if an archbishop did it, it can’t be too awful a thing to have happen, can it?

I believe it was the Archbishop who came before Cardinal Levada… I’m not sure now.

just because a member of the heigherarchy does it doesnt mean its right

ive seen many redicilous things done by bishops and arch bishops during mass

 

[Phemie]

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)

When it’s given to the secretary, it’s at least vetted to see if it’s suitable. A poster on another board spoke of the time somebody in these ‘anyone offer your intentions’ moment’ prayed for the success of her sister’s IVF treatment. Not exactly something we as Catholics should be praying for.

 

[Inquiringperson]

I didn’t create this thread for a huge argument. I think it would be best if we sent a letter to the USCCB. What they say is binding. Who’s with me? I’ll write a rough draft.

 

[revert_jen]

I didn’t create this thread for a huge argument. I think it would be best if we sent a letter to the USCCB. What they say is binding. Who’s with me? I’ll write a rough draft.

Actually, I think that in general, what the USCCB says is not binding. The conferences of bishops don’t really have that kind of authority. There are a few things that are specifically delegated to them, but on all other issues, their declarations only have authority over you if your own bishop happens to support them. Your individual bishop has much more authority in your diocese than the USCCB itself has anywhere. So if you wanted to ask anyone, probably the best person would be your own bishop.

–Jen

 

[Inquiringperson]

Actually, I think that in general, what the USCCB says is not binding. The conferences of bishops don’t really have that kind of authority. There are a few things that are specifically delegated to them, but on all other issues, their declarations only have authority over you if your own bishop happens to support them. Your individual bishop has much more authority in your diocese than the USCCB itself has anywhere. So if you wanted to ask anyone, probably the best person would be your own bishop.

–Jen

But they’re the ordinary magisterium. Oh well, time to take it further. Let’s send a letter to the CDWDS.

 

[revert_jen]

“one” doesn’t always equate to a number. If I am a teaching in a classroom with 50 students and someone asks, “can we have lunch?” and I respond, “one may eat when one is hungry.” Does that mean only one of the students can go have lunch?

I can’t let this blatant abuse of English go unchecked.

“One” may not always equate to a number, but “one of” (which is what the document states) does. First of all, if you were in a classroom and responded, “one may eat when one is hungry,” you would probably be laughed out of the room. In any case, if you had answered, “One of you may eat when you are hungry,” it would mean that only one of the students could go eat lunch.

I don’t like people calling out intentions from the pews because it is difficult and distracting to have to figure out (in about a second) whether the intention is something you can pray for (e.g. not about the success of someone’s IVF or someone’s political thing or whatever), and extremely uncomfortable if you feel it is not.

However, there was one (and only one, lest there be confusion ) post on the other side which I found pretty convincing, and that was MarkThompson’s. I know a lot about language, and the English version of the GIRM as quoted is perfectly (grammatically and syntactically) clear that it is not allowed. Mark has, however, convinced me that the English translation is in error (huge surprise!), and the practice of people calling intentions out from the pews is in fact allowed. I am convinced relatively easily because I, like many others on this thread, wouldn’t tackle a priest about it anyway, so it doesn’t much matter whether I am convinced.

–Jen

 

[revert_jen]

But they’re the ordinary magisterium. Oh well, time to take it further. Let’s send a letter to the CDWDS.

The bishops (along with the Pope of course) are the ordinary magisterium. The bishops’ conferences are not. That’s why I suggested going to your bishop.

–Jen

 

[Newbie2]

When it’s given to the secretary, it’s at least vetted to see if it’s suitable. A poster on another board spoke of the time somebody in these ‘anyone offer your intentions’ moment’ prayed for the success of her sister’s IVF treatment. Not exactly something we as Catholics should be praying for.

Yes, I agree, but in terms of personalization, there is no difference; that is my point. Mass intentions, regardless of whether spontaneous or prepared in advance, put a personal dimention on the mass and are intended (no pun “intended” ) to do so.

That’s not to say that the practice of spontanaity it correct within a mass setting…just saying that the personal dimention is a rightly recognized part of the mass. It’s about the Almighty, of course, but it’s about us people too…

 

[Inquiringperson]

The bishops (along with the Pope of course) are the ordinary magisterium. The bishops’ conferences are not. That’s why I suggested going to your bishop.

–Jen

I thought all of the bishops including the Pope make up the extraordinary magisterium.

 

[thomas_jd]

My experience of weekday Masses is that the petitions are read out either by the person who proclaimed the First Reading and the Psalm, or else by the priest himself.

There is no “need” to have people do them from the pews. Some priests allow this for whatever reason, but it is certainly not “instead of” assigning someone to read out the prayers, since the priest can do this himself, or else get the reader to do it.

My experience is the opposite. No reader , just the priest. The issue is not one of “need” but what is permissible!

 

[revert_jen]

I thought all of the bishops including the Pope make up the extraordinary magisterium.

Yes, they do, but as individual members of the College of Bishops, not as parts of a bishops’ conference. This is going to be a bit long, but perhaps it will help.

12. When the Bishops of a territory jointly exercise certain pastoral functions for the good of their faithful, such joint exercise of the episcopal ministry is a concrete application of collegial spirit (affectus collegialis), which “is the soul of the collaboration between the Bishops at the regional, national and international levels”. Nonetheless, this territorially based exercise of the episcopal ministry never takes on the collegial nature proper to the actions of the order of Bishops as such, which alone holds the supreme power over the whole Church. In fact, the relationship between individual Bishops and the College of Bishops is quite different from their relationship to the bodies set up for the above-mentioned joint exercise of certain pastoral tasks. {the above-mentioned bodies is basically the bishops’ conferences–Jen}

The collegiality of the actions of the body of Bishops is linked to the fact that “the universal Church cannot be conceived as the sum of the particular Churches, or as a federation of particular Churches”. “It is not the result of the communion of the Churches, but, in its essential mystery, it is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual particular Church”. Likewise the College of Bishops is not to be understood as the aggregate of the Bishops who govern the particular Churches, nor as the result of their communion; rather, as an essential element of the universal Church, it is a reality which precedes the office of being the head of a particular Church. In fact, the power of the College of Bishops over the whole Church is not the result of the sum of the powers of the individual Bishops over their particular Churches; it is a pre-existing reality in which individual Bishops participate. They have no competence to act over the whole Church except collegially. Only the Roman Pontiff, head of the College, can individually exercise supreme power over the Church. In other words, “episcopal collegiality in the strict and proper sense belongs only to the entire College of Bishops, which as a theological subject is indivisible”.

(emphasis mine)

You can see the whole text here: Apostolos Suos

What I think it is saying is that the Magesterial authority of the bishops is exercised only as the entire College of Bishops, not as a sum of the regional bishops’ conferences (which were not formally required until Vatican II). The bishops’ conference is not a mini-college-of-bishops, but something essentially different in kind from the College of Bishops (which is what forms part of the Magesterium).

Also, as I said below, there are specific functions that are appointed to bishops’ conferences, and those are the only things they can make binding declarations about. Everything else is just pastoral guidance.

1. A conference of bishops can only issue general decrees in cases where universal law has prescribed it or a special mandate of the Apostolic See has established it either motu proprio or at the request of the conference itself.
4. In cases in which neither universal law nor a special mandate of the Apostolic See has granted the power mentioned in §1 to a conference of bishops, the competence of each diocesan bishop remains intact, nor is a conference or its president able to act in the name of all the bishops unless each and every bishop has given consent.

All this is said not to downplay the authority of the individual bishops, but to reinforce it. Their authority is not, except in very well-defined areas, usurped by the bishops’ conference, but they still have it individually in their particular Churches (dioceses) and jointly in the entire College of Bishops.

I hope this helps.

–Jen

 

[Inquiringperson]

Yes, they do, but as individual members of the College of Bishops, not as parts of a bishops’ conference. This is going to be a bit long, but perhaps it will help.

(emphasis mine)

You can see the whole text here: Apostolos Suos

What I think it is saying is that the Magesterial authority of the bishops is exercised only as the entire College of Bishops, not as a sum of the regional bishops’ conferences (which were not formally required until Vatican II). The bishops’ conference is not a mini-college-of-bishops, but something essentially different in kind from the College of Bishops (which is what forms part of the Magesterium).

Also, as I said below, there are specific functions that are appointed to bishops’ conferences, and those are the only things they can make binding declarations about. Everything else is just pastoral guidance.

All this is said not to downplay the authority of the individual bishops, but to reinforce it. Their authority is not, except in very well-defined areas, usurped by the bishops’ conference, but they still have it individually in their particular Churches (dioceses) and jointly in the entire College of Bishops.

I hope this helps.

–Jen

I see. Thank you.

 

[Alex2008]

One way we got around this (and this was years ago) was to place a notebook near the entrance and allow people to enter their intentions on the page. Then before Mass (by the way this was usually done on weekdays) the priest celebrant would grab the notebook, look at the intentions and then use them during the prayers of the faithful.

Note that we instructed them about good/bad intentions, and then limited the amount to 10…we would not do anymore than that. Worked well on weekdays but we did not use it on weekends.

 

[DianaCC]

Note that we instructed them…

I’ve long known that in practice, anything that requires a lesson on proper form is never to be entrusted to the general public because they will always mess it up!

 

[Alex2008]

I’ve long known that in practice, anything that requires a lesson on proper form is never to be entrusted to the general public because they will always mess it up!

Ahh,

But the neat thing about the system was the fact that we had examples on the page to follow and since the Priest Celebrant checked them out before Mass began (and read them during Mass), Intentions could be skipped that didn’t pass muster. Amazingly enough the people caught on fairly quickly and we didn’t have many problems.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Who has more power? My bishop, or the CDWDS?