Why do certain liturgical rubrics exist?

[ElToro]

Why do certain liturgical rubrics exist?

Why for example can only the ordained proclaim the Gospel during the Mass. That makes little sense to me. It’s not uncommon at my parish to have the Mass celebrated by a priest who has great difficulty with the English language (he is great and he is from Mexico) along with a deacon who can barely read, at least out loud. Why does the Church prohibit in such cases having a layperson proclaim the Gospel? The result of not allowing it is a proclamation that cannot be understood.

How come only males – ordained and instituted can purify the sacred vessels?

I’m sure some people will get a kick out of typing “because the Church says so” but I would like to go a little deeper than that so please refrain if that was going to be your response.

 

[PbloPicasso]

When a preacher proclaims the gospel, he is led by the Holy Spirit in a way that only He in his ordained ministry is capable of doing - even if his native tongue is of another. There is not reason why a translator can not be present. But that takes planning.

Well, the ordained ones are men. No one other than the ordain deacon, priest or deacon is supposed to purify the sacred vessels. The main reason is because of the abuses from my understanding. But I wouldn’t bet my life on that one.

And to feed into your rant about “say so”. I’ll say so. Because the Church Authority says so, we must obey the rules. The reasons can be of various natures.

 

[ElToro]

When a preacher proclaims the gospel, he is led by the Holy Spirit in a way that only He in his ordained ministry is capable of doing - even if his native tongue is of another. There is not reason why a translator can not be present. But that takes planning.

So if a priest was to read a sentance of the Gospel in Spanish and then it was repeated by a English/Spanish interpreter to an English-speaking crowd, this would somehow be different than it it was originally proclaimed by a English speaking layperson?

Would that still work if we had the Spanish-speaking priest and the English-speaking deacon who had trouble reading, at the same Mass? The deacon could struggle though each sentance in English and then it could be re-read by a layperson?

 

[Hokomai]

When a preacher proclaims the gospel, he is led by the Holy Spirit in a way that only He in his ordained ministry is capable of doing - even if his native tongue is of another. .

Is this really Catholic teaching? If so, what is the difference claimed between the Gospel reading of the ordained person, and that of the non-ordained? Can it be heard? Is it testable by an experiment in which ordained and non-ordained read the Gospel to a group which is unaware of who is whom? Has such an experiment been done? Does it matter if the person is reading over radio, or TV or the internet, or recorded?

 

[Joannm]

When a preacher proclaims the gospel, he is led by the Holy Spirit in a way that only He in his ordained ministry is capable of doing - even if his native tongue is of another. There is not reason why a translator can not be present. But that takes planning.

Well, the ordained ones are men. No one other than the ordain deacon, priest or deacon is supposed to purify the sacred vessels. The main reason is because of the abuses from my understanding. But I wouldn’t bet my life on that one.

And to feed into your rant about “say so”. I’ll say so. Because the Church Authority says so, we must obey the rules. The reasons can be of various natures.

Not quite. If what you say that the priest is led by the Holy Spirit in preaching in a way that only he is capable of doing, then all our priests would be fantastic preachers. Also, many lay preachers (outside of Mass) I would say are filled with the Spirit in their preaching. Let’s face it, some of our priests (and deacons) are terrible preachers. We have quite a number who simply read a homily that they got off the internet.

That said, preaching a homily is a “liturgical act.” In the liturgy, ministers perform only those things that are assigned to them by their ministry. So for example, if there is a deacon present at Mass, he reads the Gospel because that is assigned to him by the liturgical law. The homily is only assigned to a priest or deacon by virtue of his ordination and his faculty to preach.

The same thing with purifying the vessels. It is not because of abuses but because purification of the paten, ciboria and chalices are a “liturgical act” that is assigned to the priest, deacon or instituted acolyte. It is not because an EMHC didn’t do a good job. We have a good number of vessels to purify after Mass (our priests only purify their chalice and paten at the altar and leave the rest covered to purify after Mass) and I can tell you that our priests would love it if the EMHCs could assist. An EMHC or the sacristian cleanses the vessels after they are purified. I say again it is not because of abuses, at least in my parish, because EMHCs were well taught as to how to purify the vessels. At first they felt slighted but now they are fine with it since they don’t have to go into the sacristy to purify the vessels and can go back to their seat and pray after distributing communion.

 

[TrueLight]

Why do certain liturgical rubrics exist?

Why for example can only the ordained proclaim the Gospel during the Mass. That makes little sense to me. It’s not uncommon at my parish to have the Mass celebrated by a priest who has great difficulty with the English language (he is great and he is from Mexico) along with a deacon who can barely read, at least out loud. Why does the Church prohibit in such cases having a layperson proclaim the Gospel? The result of not allowing it is a proclamation that cannot be understood.

How come only males – ordained and instituted can purify the sacred vessels?

I’m sure some people will get a kick out of typing “because the Church says so” but I would like to go a little deeper than that so please refrain if that was going to be your response.

This is a good question. I’d love to hear some answers from those who know Church history.

I’m thinking about the early days of Christianity where people were sharing the faith. It wasn’t only the Apostles that were sharing the faith with others. I’m sure when preaching others were telling converts what they knew about Jesus’ life through oral tradition.

How did it get to a point where only the priest could proclaim the Gospel.

What is the difference between the Gospel readings and other Biblical readings, which are also the Word of God.

History please.

 

[benedictgal]

Why do certain liturgical rubrics exist?

Why for example can only the ordained proclaim the Gospel during the Mass. That makes little sense to me. It’s not uncommon at my parish to have the Mass celebrated by a priest who has great difficulty with the English language (he is great and he is from Mexico) along with a deacon who can barely read, at least out loud. Why does the Church prohibit in such cases having a layperson proclaim the Gospel? The result of not allowing it is a proclamation that cannot be understood.

How come only males – ordained and instituted can purify the sacred vessels?

I’m sure some people will get a kick out of typing “because the Church says so” but I would like to go a little deeper than that so please refrain if that was going to be your response.

This is from Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[63.] Within the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, the reading of the Gospel, which is “the high point of the Liturgy of the Word”,139 is reserved by the Church’s tradition to an ordained minister.140 Thus it is not permitted for a layperson, even a religious, to proclaim the Gospel reading in the celebration of Holy Mass, nor in other cases in which the norms do not explicitly permit it.141

Here is the footnote reference:

1. The reading of the Gospel is the high point of the Liturgy of the Word. The Liturgy itself teaches that great reverence is to be shown to it by setting it off from the other readings with special marks of honor: whether the minister appointed to proclaim it prepares himself by a blessing or prayer; or the faithful, standing as they listen to it being read, through their acclamations acknowledge and confess Christ present and speaking to them; or the very marks of reverence are given to the Book of the Gospels.

The tradition of the proclamation of the Gospel, the Word, so to speak, has always been one of Apostolic origins. Recall what the Apostles said in Acts:

[2] Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. [3] Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. [4] But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

Thus, we see recognition in the early Church of reserving the preaching to the ordained. Even later on in the Acts, the preaching then goes, by extension, to the deacons, as evidenced by St. Philip (the deacon) who preached to the Samaritans, although the actual conferring of the sacraments was done by the Apostles.

 

[PbloPicasso]

So if a priest was to read a sentance of the Gospel in Spanish and then it was repeated by a English/Spanish interpreter to an English-speaking crowd, this would somehow be different than it it was originally proclaimed by a English speaking layperson?

Would that still work if we had the Spanish-speaking priest and the English-speaking deacon who had trouble reading, at the same Mass? The deacon could struggle though each sentance in English and then it could be re-read by a layperson?

First of all, this seems rare. You seem to misunderstand the meaning of “Proclaim the Gospel”. The cleric “Proclaims” not reads. What you perceive as reading is actually him proclaiming the Word of God, followed by a sermon/homily. Your preacher speaks English from what you’ve said, but with a strong accent. Well, when I was 15, I moved to Dry Prong Louisiana. Talk about hickville. Geometry is hard enough by itself. But then add Larry the cable guy multiplied by 20 and you have my former math teacher. It took me all year to adjust to his accent. Ironically, I speak with the same accent today. Not funny. I hate it. However, I did learn to understand him. Initially I loathed the guy because of the difficulty I had following him. Math was my strong subject. I made "C"s initially, but eventually raised my grades because I began to understand him - which is scary in itself.

I’m going to make a reach and please, don’t be offended. But, it sounds more like you have a bone to grind with your priest. In fact. I’d say it sounds down right prejudiced from where I stand. I’m sorry if I’m way off, but this is how you presented the subject to me in the selected post above. My bad if I’m wrong. And please accept my deepest apologies if this is not the case.

To elaborate on the first part of this post by me, Proclaiming the Gospel is significant. The Lecterns also proclaim the word. The Gospel is a reading from the 4 Gosepels, remember. It’s like EMHC. They are extras to help the priest. The reality is that instead of a feeding line like in the old days, the priest distributes communion with less control by us proceeding forward. The Lecturns and EMHCs are extra help. These positions used to be conducted only by ordained ministers. The seminarians, probably ordained deacons, used to be the altar servers. Basically, whether what I said is truely accureate or not, things are already out of wack with the desired methods used.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Is this really Catholic teaching? If so, what is the difference claimed between the Gospel reading of the ordained person, and that of the non-ordained? Can it be heard? Is it testable by an experiment in which ordained and non-ordained read the Gospel to a group which is unaware of who is whom? Has such an experiment been done? Does it matter if the person is reading over radio, or TV or the internet, or recorded?

Okay. this will sound crude. I don’t allow the clerics to take care of my family duties. It would be disordered, but maybe some things would be possible. It’s kind of twisted and disordered. The Gospel is the Right of the Priest to proclaim. He doesn’t have to allow the deacon to proclaim the Gospel from my understanding. But I’ve never seen where they don’t. I have, on the other hand, seen the priest give the homily after the deacon proclaims the gospel.

The deacon is also in charge of the cup, the chalice. But that doesn’t mean the priest always allows the deacon to take care of it, which seems odd to me. However, the priest presides over the mass. …thoughts interupted… I’m watching Flashpoint.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Not quite. If what you say that the priest is led by the Holy Spirit in preaching in a way that only he is capable of doing, then all our priests would be fantastic preachers. Also, many lay preachers (outside of Mass) I would say are filled with the Spirit in their preaching. Let’s face it, some of our priests (and deacons) are terrible preachers. We have quite a number who simply read a homily that they got off the internet.

That said, preaching a homily is a “liturgical act.” In the liturgy, ministers perform only those things that are assigned to them by their ministry. So for example, if there is a deacon present at Mass, he reads the Gospel because that is assigned to him by the liturgical law. The homily is only assigned to a priest or deacon by virtue of his ordination and his faculty to preach.

The same thing with purifying the vessels. It is not because of abuses but because purification of the paten, ciboria and chalices are a “liturgical act” that is assigned to the priest, deacon or instituted acolyte. It is not because an EMHC didn’t do a good job. We have a good number of vessels to purify after Mass (our priests only purify their chalice and paten at the altar and leave the rest covered to purify after Mass) and I can tell you that our priests would love it if the EMHCs could assist. An EMHC or the sacristian cleanses the vessels after they are purified. I say again it is not because of abuses, at least in my parish, because EMHCs were well taught as to how to purify the vessels. At first they felt slighted but now they are fine with it since they don’t have to go into the sacristy to purify the vessels and can go back to their seat and pray after distributing communion.

So now we’re headed towards tearing down the Church of Christ?.

The person appointed to lead a communion service are not allowed to give a homily. without the prior approval of the pastor. The lay person is required to basically read the message. You are right in saying that the reading of the Gospel is a liturgical act. But so is the act of consecration of the Eucharist, which can only be performed by a validly ordained priest (which includes bishops, but not deacons).

I never thought my comments would be placed under such scrutiny. How funny. I just knew someone would come along and explain this much better than me. However, this is what I understand to be true at the moment.

Our bishop recently ordered that giving blessings by EMHCs during mass cease. He explained in his letter that only ordained ministers possess the faculties to impart a blessing. Simplified.

 

[ElToro]

Not quite. If what you say that the priest is led by the Holy Spirit in preaching in a way that only he is capable of doing, then all our priests would be fantastic preachers. Also, many lay preachers (outside of Mass) I would say are filled with the Spirit in their preaching. Let’s face it, some of our priests (and deacons) are terrible preachers. We have quite a number who simply read a homily that they got off the internet.

That’s all VERY true although limiting the ability to preach during the context of the Mass does seem like a safguard of sort, although I am not sure I could defend the position from a logical standpoint. Proclaiming the Gospel is different. The words are not those of the proclaimer.

That said, preaching a homily is a “liturgical act.” In the liturgy, ministers perform only those things that are assigned to them by their ministry. So for example, if there is a deacon present at Mass, he reads the Gospel because that is assigned to him by the liturgical law. The homily is only assigned to a priest or deacon by virtue of his ordination and his faculty to preach.

That’s my entire question. Why does the Church limit the assignment of reading the Gospel only to the ordained?

The same thing with purifying the vessels. It is not because of abuses but because purification of the paten, ciboria and chalices are a “liturgical act” that is assigned to the priest, deacon or instituted acolyte. It is not because an EMHC didn’t do a good job. We have a good number of vessels to purify after Mass (our priests only purify their chalice and paten at the altar and leave the rest covered to purify after Mass) and I can tell you that our priests would love it if the EMHCs could assist. An EMHC or the sacristian cleanses the vessels after they are purified. I say again it is not because of abuses, at least in my parish, because EMHCs were well taught as to how to purify the vessels. At first they felt slighted but now they are fine with it since they don’t have to go into the sacristy to purify the vessels and can go back to their seat and pray after distributing communion.

Same basic question.

 

[ElToro]

This is a good question. I’d love to hear some answers from those who know Church history.

I’m thinking about the early days of Christianity where people were sharing the faith. It wasn’t only the Apostles that were sharing the faith with others. I’m sure when preaching others were telling converts what they knew about Jesus’ life through oral tradition.

How did it get to a point where only the priest could proclaim the Gospel.

What is the difference between the Gospel readings and other Biblical readings, which are also the Word of God.

History please.

The readings are the word of God – Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

These questions get more interesting the more you think about them. How can a female (for example) be trusted to distribute communion within the context of the Mass but never be allowed to purify the vessels in the same context? That makes absolutely no sense to me for the reasons typically given.

On the other hand maybe the Church wants to underscore the Real Presence by having a (preferrably) ordained or instituted male ceremonially purify the vessels during Mass? Maybe the Church wants the faithful to see and question that?

I look at my own parish in a practical sense. If tomorrow the Catholic Church said that layperson can proclaim the Gospel when needed, I would never hear my pastor proclaim it again. It would become THE most prestigious lay ministry and all the insiders would book the “job” for years out.

 

[DCNBILL]

Okay. this will sound crude. I don’t allow the clerics to take care of my family duties. It would be disordered, but maybe some things would be possible. It’s kind of twisted and disordered. The Gospel is the Right of the Priest to proclaim. He doesn’t have to allow the deacon to proclaim the Gospel from my understanding. But I’ve never seen where they don’t. I have, on the other hand, seen the priest give the homily after the deacon proclaims the gospel.

The deacon is also in charge of the cup, the chalice. But that doesn’t mean the priest always allows the deacon to take care of it, which seems odd to me. However, the priest presides over the mass. …thoughts interupted… I’m watching Flashpoint.

You may want to check out a Papal Mass sometime to see who proclaims the Gospel. If a deacon is present he is the proper minister to proclaim the Gospel.

 

[ElToro]

You may want to check out a Papal Mass sometime to see who proclaims the Gospel. If a deacon is present he is the proper minister to proclaim the Gospel.

Indeed. At Papal Masses we noew often hear the Gospel proclaimed in Latin by a Roman Rite Deacon and in Greek by an Eastern Rite Deacon of some tradition.

Let me ask a question of you. This happens all the time at my parish. The priestly celebrant is an excellent proclaimer. He has all the tools/gifts and does a beautiful job. The deacon is seemingly semi-literate/poorly educated and his readings are tortured. They are painful to listen to and on top of that there is no humility from the man for his obvious short-comings. In such cases is it still mandated that the deacon and not the celebrant proclaim the Gospel? Thanks.

 

[DCNBILL]

Indeed. At Papal Masses we noew often hear the Gospel proclaimed in Latin by a Roman Rite Deacon and in Greek by an Eastern Right Deacon of some tradition.

Let me ask a question of you. This happens all the time at my parish. The priestly celebrant is an excellent proclaimer. He has all the tools/gifts and does a beautiful job. The deacon is seemingly semi-literate/poorly educated and his readings are tortured. They are painful to listen to and on top of that there is no humility from the man for his obvious short-comings. In such cases is it still mandated that the deacon and not the celebrant proclaim the Gospel? Thanks.

Yes, if the deacon is assisting at Mass he is the proper minister to proclaim the Gospel unless he is physically unable (has laryngitis or something). In such a case as you state the pastor or local ordinary might encourage the deacon to take additional education courses during which time he would not assist at Mass until he is better prepared for this duty.

btw I hope that you are not from my parish.

 

[ElToro]

Yes, if the deacon is assisting at Mass he is the proper minister to proclaim the Gospel unless he is physically unable (has laryngitis or something). In such a case as you state the pastor or local ordinary might encourage the deacon to take additional education courses during which time he would not assist at Mass until he is better prepared for this duty.

btw I hope that you are not from my parish.

That sort of stuff fascinates me. The Church would rather see the proclaimation be compromised in how it is transmitted to the faithful rather than simply have the priest proclaim it. I find that problematic.

It’s interesting. The deacon in question was a combined altar server/extraordinary minister of Holy Communion for 20 years before he entered the diaconate formation. Not one time did he read as a layperson. It seems to me that all potential deacons in formation should be readers at their parishes. It would allow them to gain valuable experience or make sure they washed-out before being ordained.

 

[benedictgal]

So if a priest was to read a sentance of the Gospel in Spanish and then it was repeated by a English/Spanish interpreter to an English-speaking crowd, this would somehow be different than it it was originally proclaimed by a English speaking layperson?

Would that still work if we had the Spanish-speaking priest and the English-speaking deacon who had trouble reading, at the same Mass? The deacon could struggle though each sentance in English and then it could be re-read by a layperson?

If misallettes are readily available, there is really no need for a double proclamation of the Gospel. In fact, such is not allowed.

Incidentally, in Papal Masses, the Gospel is chanted in Latin (most of the time). The only time that there is a double proclamation (and this is reserved to the Holy Father, since he is the Supreme authority in the liturgy), is when the Gospel is also proclaimed in Greek. This happens on the highest of solemnities, thus, it is not frequently used. Nonetheless, this is the Holy Father’s prerogative and privilege. The faithful do have worship aids to follow along in their own languages.

 

[LilyM]

That sort of stuff fascinates me. The Church would rather see the proclaimation be compromised in how it is transmitted to the faithful rather than simply have the priest proclaim it. I find that problematic.

It’s interesting. The deacon in question was a combined altar server/extraordinary minister of Holy Communion for 20 years before he entered the diaconate formation. Not one time did he read as a layperson. It seems to me that all potential deacons in formation should be readers at their parishes. It would allow them to gain valuable experience or make sure they washed-out before being ordained.

Well, by extension any liturgical function could then be swapped around at whim. If you have a particularly untalented priest, what’s stopping you, by your logic, from letting a talented deacon take over the whole show from beginning to end. including the words of consecration? Or even a talented layperson if no deacon is available?

Your answer, which is the correct one, would be that a deacon or layperson is not ordained to consecrate the Eucharist. Darn tooting, and neither are they consecrated to perform any of the other liturgical functions which are proper to the priest. The consecration is not the only part or act of the liturgy reserved to the ordained, y’know.

 

[ElToro]

Well, by extension any liturgical function could then be swapped around at whim. If you have a particularly untalented priest, what’s stopping you, by your logic, from letting a talented deacon take over the whole show from beginning to end. including the words of consecration? Or even a talented layperson if no deacon is available?.

LOL!! Nice try but I’m not going to buy into that. The priest stands in the Person of Christ at the Altar of Sacrifice. Proclaiming the Gospel at the ambo does not require this because if he did, the deacon would not be the ordinary minister of the proclamation.

Your answer, which is the correct one, would be that a deacon or layperson is not ordained to consecrate the Eucharist. Darn tooting, and neither are they consecrated to perform any of the other liturgical functions which are proper to the priest. The consecration is not the only part or act of the liturgy reserved to the ordained, y’know.

Not all of “the ordained” can perform the consecration. A layperson CAN proclaim the Gospel if there is no deacon and the priest cannot. It would in no way invalidate the Mass. Neither a layperson nor a deacon can confect the Blessed Sacrament however. Is either tried, there would be no Mass, just a prohibited simulation.

 

[FAB]

This is from Redemptionis Sacramentum:

Here is the footnote reference:

The tradition of the proclamation of the Gospel, the Word, so to speak, has always been one of Apostolic origins. Recall what the Apostles said in Acts:

Thus, we see recognition in the early Church of reserving the preaching to the ordained. Even later on in the Acts, the preaching then goes, by extension, to the deacons, as evidenced by St. Philip (the deacon) who preached to the Samaritans, although the actual conferring of the sacraments was done by the Apostles.

benedictgal, on this point we are in total agreement. tradition and documents support the ordained reading the Gospel totally. One addition, it is the job of the Deacon to specifcally proclaim the Gospel.