Two readers for intentions?

[Pdan]

Our parish priest decided that for Lent two people should read the petitions, alternating between intentions with the thought that people would pay more attention to them. I told him I would rather not do that with another reader as I believe it to run contrary to the GIRM. He stated that the children did this with the Bishop present at a children’s Mass, where each child read one intention. I still believe this notion runs contrary to GIRM and should not become a regular practice at all Masses.

1. If there are several present who are able to exercise the same ministry, nothing forbids their distributing among themselves and performing different parts of the same ministry or duty. For example, one Deacon may be assigned to execute the sung parts, another to serve at the altar; if there are several readings, it is well to distribute them among a number of readers, and the same applies for other matters. However, it is not at all appropriate that several persons divide a single element of the celebration among themselves, e.g., that the same reading be proclaimed by two readers, one after the other, with the exception of the Passion of the Lord.

It would seem that the reading of petitions would fall under this GIRM, but I am asking for a clarification.

 

[1ke]

The GIRM does seem to envision one person leading the Prayers of the Faithful:

1. It is for the Priest Celebrant to regulate this prayer from the chair. He himself begins it with a brief introduction, by which he calls upon the faithful to pray, and likewise he concludes it with an oration. The intentions announced should be sober, be composed with a wise liberty and in few words, and they should be expressive of the prayer of the entire community.

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.

That said, it’s the priest’s decision not yours.

 

[FrDavid96]

Our parish priest decided that for Lent two people should read the petitions, alternating between intentions with the thought that people would pay more attention to them. I told him I would rather not do that with another reader as I believe it to run contrary to the GIRM. He stated that the children did this with the Bishop present at a children’s Mass, where each child read one intention. I still believe this notion runs contrary to GIRM and should not become a regular practice at all Masses.

1. If there are several present who are able to exercise the same ministry, nothing forbids their distributing among themselves and performing different parts of the same ministry or duty. For example, one Deacon may be assigned to execute the sung parts, another to serve at the altar; if there are several readings, it is well to distribute them among a number of readers, and the same applies for other matters. However, it is not at all appropriate that several persons divide a single element of the celebration among themselves, e.g., that the same reading be proclaimed by two readers, one after the other, with the exception of the Passion of the Lord.

It would seem that the reading of petitions would fall under this GIRM, but I am asking for a clarification.

Yes, the GIRM says one person.

However, a certain reasonable flexibility is possible.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Not that I’ve seen many parishes do it this way, but I thought the default reader of the Prayer of the Faithful was the deacon, if present.

 

[Pdan]

I believe what is being regulated is where the prayer will take place, in the chair and not at the alter or ambo. The priest regulates (prays the introduction and closing oration) from the chair. GIRM 109 establishes the reader/lector guidelines and in #71, all named are decisively singular in nature: 71: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.67
Thank you for your reply.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Our parish priest decided that for Lent two people should read the petitions, alternating between intentions with the thought that people would pay more attention to them. I told him I would rather not do that with another reader as I believe it to run contrary to the GIRM. He stated that the children did this with the Bishop present at a children’s Mass, where each child read one intention. I still believe this notion runs contrary to GIRM and should not become a regular practice at all Masses.

1. If there are several present who are able to exercise the same ministry, nothing forbids their distributing among themselves and performing different parts of the same ministry or duty. For example, one Deacon may be assigned to execute the sung parts, another to serve at the altar; if there are several readings, it is well to distribute them among a number of readers, and the same applies for other matters. However, it is not at all appropriate that several persons divide a single element of the celebration among themselves, e.g., that the same reading be proclaimed by two readers, one after the other, with the exception of the Passion of the Lord.

It would seem that the reading of petitions would fall under this GIRM, but I am asking for a clarification.

You have failed to take account of the General Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass, which makes the following statement regarding the bidding prayers:

*30. In the light of God’s word and in a sense in response to it, the congregation of the faithful prays in the universal prayer as a rule for the needs of the universal Church and the local community, for the salvation of the world and those oppressed by any burden, and for special categories of people.

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. In these petitions “the people, exercising its priestly function, makes intercession for all men and women,” with the result that, as the liturgy of the word has its full effects in the faithful, they are better prepared to proceed to the liturgy of the Eucharist.*
Furthermore, it is not correct to apply the prohibition articulated in GIRM 109 to the bidding prayers. Each intention is its own unit. That is what permits the intentions to be in different languages, while enunciated by different persons…as but one example among others.

One is always best served in seeking out those in one’s diocese. or elsewhere, who are specialists in liturgy – and above all one who has been selected by the diocesan bishop to complete advanced studies in liturgy, at the second or even third cycle.

Your parish priest is indeed acting soundly in his decision

 

[FrDavid96]

Not that I’ve seen many parishes do it this way, but I thought the default reader of the Prayer of the Faithful was the deacon, if present.

Yes, exactly.

The GIRM is clear that only “in the absence of a deacon” can someone other than a deacon do this.

This is a specifically diaconal function.

That’s made clear in GIRM 94.

See also GIRM 177
“…It is the deacon himself who announces the intentions…”

 

[Pdan]

Don Ruggero
Furthermore, it is not correct to apply the prohibition articulated in GIRM 109 to the bidding prayers. Each intention is its own unit. That is what permits the intentions to be in different languages, while enunciated by different persons…as but one example among others.

Don, on the other hand the Universal Prayer or Prayer of Petition has a beginning and end.
It is not called the Universal PrayerS. While I agree that there are times such as a bi-lingual mass that may call for such an exchange between readers, or a children’s Mass where each child reads an intention, I believe with a well formed Catholic conscience that I personally can not participate as a reader to proclaim the intentions between two readers of the same language in regards to GIRM 109. Could you reference me where you found the notion that each intention is its own unit and that it should not be applied to GIRM 109. Thanks in advance.

 

[FrDavid96]

Our parish priest decided that for Lent two people should read the petitions, alternating between intentions with the thought that people would pay more attention to them. I told him I would rather not do that with another reader as I believe it to run contrary to the GIRM. He stated that the children did this with the Bishop present at a children’s Mass, where each child read one intention. I still believe this notion runs contrary to GIRM and should not become a regular practice at all Masses.

1. If there are several present who are able to exercise the same ministry, nothing forbids their distributing among themselves and performing different parts of the same ministry or duty. For example, one Deacon may be assigned to execute the sung parts, another to serve at the altar; if there are several readings, it is well to distribute them among a number of readers, and the same applies for other matters. However, it is not at all appropriate that several persons divide a single element of the celebration among themselves, e.g., that the same reading be proclaimed by two readers, one after the other, with the exception of the Passion of the Lord.

It would seem that the reading of petitions would fall under this GIRM, but I am asking for a clarification.

If doing this makes you uncomfortable, then that’s your decision not to do it. Everyone needs to respect that.

However, at the same time, please understand that some degree of flexibility is possible here, with regard to your particular question.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Don Ruggero
Furthermore, it is not correct to apply the prohibition articulated in GIRM 109 to the bidding prayers. Each intention is its own unit. That is what permits the intentions to be in different languages, while enunciated by different persons…as but one example among others.

Don, on the other hand the Universal Prayer or Prayer of Petition has a beginning and end.
It is not called the Universal PrayerS. While I agree that there are times such as a bi-lingual mass that may call for such an exchange between readers, or a children’s Mass where each child reads an intention, I believe with a well formed Catholic conscience that I personally can not participate as a reader to proclaim the intentions between two readers of the same language in regards to GIRM 109. Could you reference me where you found the notion that each intention is its own unit and that it should not be applied to GIRM 109. Thanks in advance.

I beg your pardon? They are just as properly termed the General Intercessions. They are also just as properly termed the Bidding Prayers

You are perfectly free to assert that you are not comfortable participating.

What you are not free to assert is that you are in a position to determine better these matters than the Holy See, better than the bishops, and better than those who are liturgical academics and/or liturgists at the service of their respective bishops.

The intentions are separate. I would point out, however, that the anaphora is not. It has a unicity which can, nevertheless, be divided among those who concelebrate with the one who is Presider…not simply because of the rubrics that serve the anaphora but precisely because of the underlying theology to those rubrics. And the value that is expressed GIRM 109 yields to that greater theological reality, as in the case of the anaphora, as an example.

This is known and understood both by bishops and those who are liturgical academics…but in reading GIRM 109, I would not be surprised if one who is not a liturgical specialist could see an anomaly where in fact no anomaly exists whatsoever.

Which is why there is a real problem when assessments and conclusions are arrived at through a simplistic reading that belies aspects as to why something is or is not done – or indeed even can be done or cannot be done – that is beyond the scope of one lacking that academic and pastoral training and formation.

That is also why one cannot absolutise what one reads but must read it in the appropriate context to various other factors and considerations.

In this case, the assessment you assert is not sustainable nor is it properly yours to arrive at…or even less to apply. That rests with your priest, the Director of the Office of Worship for your diocese, and then with the Bishop of your diocese.

The Prayers of the Faithful, with the individual intentions being presented by the Sisters of Mercy at a Mass presided by the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Pdan]

Thank you FrDavid96
After prayerful consideration I concur with your point of view and appreciate the advice.
Pdan

 

[Pdan]

Don Ruggero,
I am not trying to discount the liturgical practices of our Priest but seek the truth and try to make our Priest the best he can be. Our priest has covered statues and removed Holy Water on Ash Wednesday for the past ten years. I consulted the USCCB and the Vicar General of our Diocese.
USCCB response: Well, the Roman Missal in this country has a rubric on the Fifth Sunday of Lent that says: “In the Dioceses of the United States, the practice of covering crosses and images throughout the church from this Sunday may be observed. Crosses remain covered until the end of the Celebration of the Lord’s Passion on Good Friday, but images remain covered until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.” Perhaps you could visit with your pastor, or contact the diocese’s liturgy office (if there is one) to see if there are other local policies in force. But I think the rubric speaks for itself – the bishops voted on that legislation, and the Holy See approved it.
And from the Vicar General: There is also a document from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments dated March 14, 2000, which states that the removal of holy water from fonts during the season of Lent is not permitted. That would be the only adjustment I would make to the comments you received from the USCCB.

Our Chancellor will be putting out a reminder to the priests about the rubrics for Lent.

With prayers and gratitude for all you do,

Msgr. Hoefler

Although the statues remain covered, Holy Water is back. I will Talk with Father about the statues next year. I had a tugging at my heart to look into this as I missed the Sacramental of Holy Water. Priests are human too and rest assured Don that my intentions for seeking the truth come through prayer.
I pray you have a great Lenten season